Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Ordnance Factories

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply what plans have been made in his Department for the change-over to the production of civil goods in Royal Ordnance factories in the light of the declining needs of the Services and improving prospects of international agreement on disarmament.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): The Royal Ordnance factories at present undertake civil work on a limited scale as suppliers to other industrial organisations. Although they may take on more work on this basis when it is convenient and economical to do so, there are no plans for their changing over to the manufacture of civil goods on a large scale.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the likelihood of a cut in arms production, which will be very welcome, is not it time that some plans were made, especially as in many areas where there are large Royal Ordnance factories, alternative employment is not easily obtainable and, therefore, there is a danger of unemployment suddenly being increased?

Mr. Jones: I accept that, in view of a likely reduction in the arms programme, it is desirable to undertake a review of the whole Royal Ordnance capacity, and that I am doing; but to go into civil work on a large scale would, I submit, be inconsistent with the conception of these factories as primarily munitions factories.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply the total number of workers made redundant at the Royal Ordnance factory,

Radway Green, in the calendar year 1956; his estimate of the number to be made redundant in the calendar year 1957; and to what extent agreement has been reached with the trade unions about these measures.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Five hundred and seventy workpeople were declared redundant in 1956. Two hundred and ninety-eight of them left the factory in that year. The remainder will have gone by next March. No further redundancy is expected this year. These measures have been fully discussed with the local and headquarter representatives of the trade unions concerned and are being carried out strictly in accordance with the redundancy agreement between the official and the trade union sides of my Department's Joint Industrial Council.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that in North Staffordshire, from which many of these men come, unemployment is already a good deal higher than the average national level? Therefore, when these matters are being considered with the trade unions, will the right hon. Gentleman pay very serious attention to the question of the availability of alternative employment before any further redundancy is created?

Mr. Jones: The timing and the pace of the redundancy notices is discussed with the trade unions. I have no doubt that the factors which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are taken into account in the discussions.

Mr. G. Brown: As a believer in enterprise, would the right hon. Gentleman say why he is not encouraging these factories under his protection to go out to get contracts to do work?

Mr. Jones: That supplementary question seems to me to be related to the earlier Question rather than to this one. I think my Answer to the first Question made it clear that limited civil work is not at all excluded, because—and I think I made this perfectly plain in my Answer—the essence of a munitions factory is that it shall undertake munitions work. To undertake civil work on a large scale would militate against its ability to withdraw from it into munitions work quickly.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Supply why a contract for 20,000 L7A mechanical fuses has been diverted from the Royal Ordnance factory which has been making this type of fuse since 1939 to a private firm which is unable to supply the steel bodies and has sub-let that part of the contract to the original Royal Ordnance factory.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: In 1952, requirements for these mechanisms were expected to be very great and it was considered advisable to create additional capacity. No contract was diverted—to use the term used in the Question—from the Royal Ordnance factory, but a small educational order was placed with a private firm. The firm experienced difficulty in supplying the steel bodies, which they had sub-contracted, and that part of the order has been cancelled and replaced by an order on the Royal Ordnance factory.

Mr. Hynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that all normal orders for this article will continue to be placed with the Royal Ordnance factory which has been making it so far?

Mr. Jones: Assuming the capacity of the Royal Ordnance factories to be adequate, normally all orders would be placed with them.

Contracts, Coventry

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement upon the initial steps taken by his Department to provide alternative civil contracts to industrial firms in Coventry in order that the Government's wish to maintain a high and stable level of employment, together with an expanding national economy, may be maintained.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: My Department's procurement responsibilities relate in the main to supplies required for defence purposes. Apart from the special consideration given to Development Areas, Government contracts are not allocated on a geographical basis, but firms in Coventry and elsewhere who are on the Ministry's trades lists are given full opportunity to tender.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that our unemployment figures in Coventry were worse in January than in December? Further, is he aware that the firm of Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft

has said that it would be turning off between 500 and 600 skilled men in the next nine months? Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people in Coventry simply do not believe in the Government's statement about an expanding economy when they do nothing at all for places like Coventry? Has the Minister no suggestions at all about civil contracts?

Mr. Jones: With all respect, the supplementary question seems to me to transcend by far the nature of my Departmental competence. The Question touches the sphere of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. Questions of such a wide ambit should really be directed to him.

Research Aircraft SC-1

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement on the progress made with the jet-powered research aircraft SC-1 designed for vertical take-off and landing; and whether he will estimate when the results of such research are likely to be incorporated in production models for general use.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The aircraft has recently undergone taxi-ing trials. These will be followed by flight trials to prove the aircraft in conventional forward flight, by hovering trials with the aircraft tethered to test the vertical lift arrangements, leading up finally to unrestricted vertical take-off and landing and transition from hovering to forward flight. It is impossible to forecast when the results of this research work will be embodied in an operational aircraft.

Helicopters

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to correct the insufficient care of his Department in limiting the number of helicopter research projects, as reported by the Select Committee on Estimates, Second Report. 19th December, 1956; and what financial economy his correction will achieve in this field.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The comments of the Select Committee on Estimates about helicopter projects relate mainly to the programme as it was some time ago. My predecessor announced during the defence debate on 29th February, 1956, that the helicopter programme had been reviewed


and three major projects cancelled. There are at present only four helicopters under development.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, following his review of the position, that all practical economies are now being made, compatible with efficiency, in the Department within his care, as opposed to the care of his predecessor?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Jones: To arrive at that degree of satisfaction after only a week in office would be rather much to expect. Although, as I have said, there are now only four helicopters under development, the justification for expenditure on those four will have to be looked at, in the light of the defence programme which will be set out in the White Paper.

Mr. Nabarro: A very reasonable answer.

Select Committee on Estimates (Report)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates, Second Report, 19th December, 1956; what financial economies he expects to achieve; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I am at present studying this Report. A reply will be communicated to the Committee in due course, and, if it is the wish of the House, I will also make a statement.

Mr. Nabarro: I hope that my right hon. Friend's study is fruitful. Is it not a fact that this Report reveals most glaring deficiencies in administration—waste and extravagance—on the part of his Department? Is not the House of Commons entitled, following a report of its own Members, to demand a rigid review of expenditure with a view to substantial economies?

Mr. Rankin: And a new Government.

Mr. Jones: Some of the recommendations of the Report are statements of the ideal, with which nobody will quarrel. Of course it would be wrong to overload the aircraft industry, but the question of practical judgment whether this or that item is justifiable is quite different. That can be decided upon only after much more detailed investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Cathlene Murray

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Cathlene Murray, the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Murray, of 22, Oswald Street, Carlisle, has been detained in various institutions for mental defectives for 23 years; and when she will be released.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I am aware of the position in this case, about which my predecessor wrote to my hon. Friend. With regard to the second part of the Question, this patient is still in need of hospital care and training.

Dr. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the reluctance to discharge this case after so many years' detention implies failure? Will he look at the case with a view to assessing the value of the whole system under which this lady has been treated for so long? In particular, in view of the anxiety of my constituents concerning their daughter, would my right hon. Friend facilitate my making a personal visit to see her at the Moss Side Hospital?

Mr. Vosper: I have examined this case. This particular girl has been treated in a number of hospitals. She was even allowed out on licence two years ago, but had a relapse and had to be brought back again. Therefore, I do not think that an over-cautious attitude has been adopted. My hon. Friend has also raised rather wider issues, and I will look at his last point.

Staff

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the continuing staff difficulties in our mental hospitals; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Vosper: I am aware that there are shortages of staff, particularly of doctors and nurses. In regard to doctors, there has been an increase in numbers in post in recent years. Recruitment of nurses is also improving. For the special measures which have been taken, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) on 26th November, 1956.

Mr. Owen: Did not the Minister's predecessor promise the House that some investigation would be made into this increasing problem of staff difficulties? Up to now we seem to have had no direct statement of Government policy. Would my right hon. Friend be willing to consult the trade unions concerned in dealing with this matter?

Mr. Vosper: My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Miss Hornsby-Smith), as Parliamentary Secretary, made a statement on 26th November which went into this question fairly fully. During the last year there has been considerable improvement in the staffing position. In regard to nurses alone, the position improved by 8 per cent. in the first nine months of last year. At the moment, I would have thought there was sufficient progress apart from taking any further action.

Mr. H. Fraser: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, although there has been progress, it is not fast enough on the nursing side? Will my right hon. Friend look at the too great differential between skilled nurses and the trainee and probationer nurses, who are not being sufficiently attracted to the profession?

Mr. Vosper: I will look at that point.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the growing age of nurses in mental nursing and to the urgent need to look again at the question of their representation on the Whitley Council, which is a matter of great concern?

St. Luke's Hospital, Lowestoft

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Health what proposals are being examined for the future use of St. Luke's Hospital, Lowestoft; and when a decision as to its use will be arrived at.

Mr. Vosper: The revised estimated cost of adapting this building is so high that the regional hospital board has asked me to dispose of it. I propose to do so and am considering proposals from the board for meeting the need elsewhere.

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this fine building occupies one of the most advantageous sites on the East Coast? Is it not a tragic

waste of capital assets that it is not being used? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Works about the utilisation of the building for a Government Department or in any other way?

Mr. Vosper: My initial reaction when I examined the case was similar to that of the hon. Member, but it would cost an enormous sum to make this an economically efficient hospital. I am, however, prepared to look at the matter and discuss it with the hon. Member, if he is so inclined.

Rampton Institution (Escapes)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Health whether he will cause an inquiry to be set up to investigate the circumstances relating to the recent escape of two male patients from the Rampton State Institution.

Mr. Vosper: Two Senior Commissioners of the Board of Control have carried out an investigation at Rampton Hospital, and I am awaiting a report from the Board.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Health to what extent Rampton State Institution is understaffed.

Mr. Vosper: I assume the Question refers to nursing staff. Out of a complement of 140 male and 105 female staff, there are seven and 12 vacancies, respectively.

Mr. Bellenger: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the improvement which he announced this afternoon in answer to Question No. 10—an 8 per cent. increase in recruiting over the nine months of last year—applies to this hospital?

Mr. Vosper: I am afraid that I have not available the previous staffing figures for Rampton, but I should have thought that there had been an improvement. There was a full complement of staff in the ward from which the two patients escaped.

Mr. M. Stewart: Can the Minister say anything about other kinds of staff? In particular, is Rampton so staffed that the patients there can not only be kept under restraint and looked after in the ordinary way, but can be given treatment appropriate to their condition?

Mr. Vosper: The inference behind that question, presumably, is that the staffing complement of Rampton is inadequate. I have no reason to think that that may be the case.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the local apprehension caused by the recent escapes from Rampton State Institution and the subsequent terrorising of peaceful citizens; and if he will therefore make arrangements to ensure that immediate warning shall be given to local inhabitants in the event of future escapes.

Mr. Vosper: Yes, Sir; as regards the second part of the Question, I am awaiting a report from the Board of Control.

Mental Hospital Patients (Discharges)

Mr. Doughty: asked the Minister of Health which officials of mental hospitals are responsible for the discharge of patients; on what basis they are remunerated; and whether their remuneration is related in any way to the number of patients in the hospital.

Mr. Vosper: No official is authorised to discharge a patient in a mental hospital, but any two members of the hospital management committee, when ordering the discharge of a temporary or certified patient, must do so with the advice in writing of the medical superintendent. The salary of medical superintendents is generally based on length of service in their clinical grade and not on the number of patients.

Mr. Doughty: It therefore follows, does it not, that if beds in a mental hospital are empty, the officials responsible for the discharge of patients suffer no financial loss?

Mr. Vosper: Yes, that is true.

Stoke Mandeville Hospital (Sports Trophy)

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements he has made for displaying the Fearnley Cup for 1956, awarded to the Stoke Mandeville Hospital by the International Olympic Committee in recognition of its work in promoting amateur sports among the seriously disabled.

Mr. Vosper: This award has been made, not to Stoke Mandeville Hospital,

but, I understand, to the organisers of the Stoke Mandeville Games. It is for them to decide how it should be displayed.

Mr. Isaacs: Is not the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that this is a tribute to the work of the British Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in pioneering this service over many years, and to Stoke Mandeville and Dr. Guttmann, who have made this possible? Surely such an award, made for the first time to an English-speaking nation and for the first time to disabled persons, is worth more publicity and recognition from the Government than the right hon. Member appears to give it?

Mr. Vosper: I should like to be associated with the tribute which my predecessor conveyed to Dr. Guttmann; but this is a matter for a local trust to decide, as I understand it, and no application has been made to me. If the right hon. Gentleman has any positive suggestion to make, I will, of course consider it.

Mr. Isaacs: One suggestion which I could make is that the Minister might be good enough to have this trophy placed in the Library so that we can all see it.

Mr. Vosper: I understand that the trophy itself does not leave Switzerland and that only a replica is presented in this country.

Miss Mary Betteridge

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health (1) in view of the evidence submitted by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford indicating that Miss Mary Betteridge had been certified and detained in a mental home on evidence that applied to another person, and also in view of the testimony that before certification she was above the normal standard of intelligence, on what grounds Miss Betteridge was certified; and what consideration has been given to the testimony submitted;
(2) in view of the testimony by the physician in charge, psychiatric department, Bromley Hospital, that he has examined Miss Mary Betteridge at St. Mary's Mental Hospital, Birmingham, and in his opinion there do not appear to be any grounds upon which she can be certified under the Mental Deficiency Act


as a mentally defective person, what action he proposes to take with regard to Miss Betteridge;
(3) if he is aware that an incorrect diagnosis was made in the case of Miss Mary Betteridge, interpreting a psychological illness as a mental defect, and that the facilities at the mental institution in which she is detained do not provide the special treatment for a psychological illness; and what action is to be taken to give Miss Betteridge the treatment she requires.

Mr. Vosper: I would refer the hon. Member to the letters sent to him by my predecessor on 26th September, 1956, and 19th October, 1956. I am informed that this patient has now been granted leave of absence on licence from the hospital.

Mr. Dodds: Does the Minister appreciate that the testimony by the young woman's former employer, the family doctor and this authority from Bromley Hospital is directly opposite to that of the certifying officer? Has the Minister seen the girl's school-leaving certificate, which says,
Mary is clean and is a member of the Health Brigade. During the past term she has been a School Prefect. She has attended school regularly and been very punctual. She is well-mannered and courteous.
Does this add up to being a mental defective? Will the Minister state why so many young people, because of expediency, are sent into mental homes without treatment and often used as cheap labour?

Mr. Vosper: I have studied many of the documents in this case, and I am aware that there are two different opinions, but I am not satisfied that a wrong decision was taken. This patient is now on licence, and it would be wise to see how she gets on.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Dental Caries (Children)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether he will institute a survey of the problem of dental caries in children in London aged five years, similar to, and in the same area as, the surveys carried out in past years by Sir Edward and Lady Mellanby.

Mr. Vosper: I understand that Lady Mellanby is at present making a further survey.

Dr. Stross: A very good answer. Thank you.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me in writing—because I quite understand that he would not have the answer with him—whether the inquiry is limited to one age-group—

Mr. McAdden: On a point of order. Is it in order for those who have renounced their British nationality and adopted Norwegian to ask Questions in the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Captain Pilkington: Further to that point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether somebody who has said she is ashamed of being British ought to be in this House?

Mr. Speaker: These are all matters of opinion.

Dr. Stross: rose—

Dr. Summerskill: May I have a reply to my supplementary question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will the Minister let me know in writing whether this new inquiry is being limited only to this age-group, or whether it will be wider, and particularly among adolescents?

Mr. Vosper: Lady Mellanby told us that she was making a further inquiry. I gather that it is limited to the previous scope, but I will look at the point.

Cigarette Smoking

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Health whether he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider what immediate and practical steps can be taken to reduce cigarette smoking.

Mr. Vosper: No, Sir. I do not consider that a Select Committee would be an appropriate body for this purpose.

Mr. Lipton: Now that a definite connection has been established between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, can the hundreds of millions of pounds made by the Government out of cigarette smoking be regarded as moral earnings? Are not the Government under a solemn


obligation to warn the public of the risk and to take much more positive action than they have shown signs of doing, even if it means upsetting the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the tobacco magnates?

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member gave notice that he was going to raise this matter on the Adjournment, but he has not yet done so. If he did, it would give an opportunity for dealing with some of the rather unfair allegations he has made.

Mr. Hastings: Short of appointing a Royal Commission, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that the evidence is sufficiently strong for something definite to be done by his Department? Ought not young people and children in the schools at any rate to be warned of the dangers of cigarette smoking?

Mr. Vosper: I do intend to look further into this matter and to take the advice of those concerned. I do not believe at the moment that a Select Committee would be the right vehicle. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has, of course, recently issued further advice to the schools.

Blind Persons

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have a statutory committee for the welfare of the blind; and how many of these have a registered blind person serving on the committee.

Mr. Vosper: All county and county borough councils have committees for the discharge of their functions under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948, including functions relating to the welfare of the blind. Information in regard to the second part of the Question is not available.

Mr. Evans: Would the Minister not agree that it is most desirable that, so far as possible, actual registered blind persons should be recruited to these welfare committees for the blind? Would the right hon. Gentleman give some encouragement to local authorities in that connection?

Mr. Vosper: I agree with that, and I hope that this Question may come to the notice of those concerned. I do not think I could go so far as to issue a directive on the subject.

B.C.G. Vaccine

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Health if he is prepared to extend the use of Bacillus Calnette-Guerin for young people up to the age of 21 years.

Mr. Vosper: I will consider the question of some extension of the present arrangements when local health authorities have had longer experience in vaccinating 13-year-old children and in the light of further reports from the Medical Research Council on its trials of the vaccine.

Mr. Remnant: Can my right hon. Friend assure me 'that there will be no difficulty in doing that—if it is thought advisable—due to any shortage of the serum?

Mr. Vosper: I do not think so. If any health authority now feels that it can tackle this matter I would give consideration to the proposal.

Dr. Summerskill: As it is a most vulnerable period between the ages of 21 and 25, would the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the limit to age 25?

Mr. Vosper: I will look at that. At the moment we have been concentrating on the 13-year-olds, but we must consider extending the limit upwards.

Doctors (Salaries)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the negotiations with the representatives of the medical profession concerning salary increases for doctors in the National Health Service.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the discontent among members of the medical profession over his refusal to continue negotiations on the question of increased salaries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Health what negotiations are pending to increase the salaries of doctors.

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have agreed to meet representatives of the profession towards the middle of February. For the present, I have no statement to make.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will deal with this matter on its merits and not treat the doctors in the same shabby and dirty way as the Government treated the question of Members' salaries?

Mr. Vosper: I do not think it would help my negotiations and the meeting in February to make any further comment at this stage.

Mr. Lipton: As the honour of the Government is at stake, will the Minister at least agree to have an independent arbitration to settle a firm basis for any future adjustments of doctors' salaries? Surely that would be the best way of doing it?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: While not sharing the views of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), may I ask if my right hon. Friend is aware of the enormous importance today of the State honouring its obligations to important sections of the community and seeing that justice, as pledged and promised in the past, is fully discharged? Will my right hon. Friend argue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the possible inflationary consequences of doing this thing can be taken care of by other means?

Mr. Vosper: I have to answer other Questions on the legal obligations in this matter. I will take note of what my noble Friend has said.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not he proposes to examine the claim and the basis on which the claim is founded?

Mr. Vosper: I should not like to add to my original Answer.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Health if he is now prepared to accept the contractual obligation implied in the Spens Report as the basis of all future salary negotiations with the medical profession.

Mr. Vosper: I am advised that no legal contractual obligation exists.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Minister not realise that now he has properly decided to meet the doctors in negotiations over their claim for higher remuneration, it will be necessary for him to face up to what are called the implications, alleged or otherwise, of the Spens Reports?
Would it not be wise of him to take this matter into consideration in the negotiations?

Mr. Vosper: I have just said in my original reply that no legal contractual obligation exists. That opinion was conveyed to the doctors at an earlier meeting, and when they meet me in February they will be well aware of the position.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister not aware that this is one of the points which has caused every scalpel in Scotland at least to be drawn during the week-end and that there will be no satisfactory issue unless the matter is dealt with? The doctors do not accept the explanation he has given.

Mr. Vosper: I have already said that I will meet the doctors, and I shall look forward to that meeting; but I shall not be meeting them on the basis that a legal contractual obligation exists.

Tuberculosis, Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons known to be suffering from tuberculosis in the county borough of Sunderland on the latest available date.

Mr. Vosper: One thousand, nine hundred and one on the 31st December, 1956.

Mr. Willey: Is not the right hon. Gentleman very disturbed by this figure? Is it not very disturbing that this figure is both much larger than it was pre-war and has been increasing over recent years? To what does the right hon. Gentleman attribute this increase?

Mr. Vosper: It is high compared with other parts of the country, but there has not been a large increase in recent years. I should attribute it to intensive case finding and the fact that people suffering from this disease are living longer.

Old People (Chiropody)

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health if he will now give permission for the city of Stoke-on-Trent to undertake a chiropody service to aged people.

Mr. Vosper: I regret that I cannot do so at present.

Mrs. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Stoke-on-Trent, like other large areas, the problem of dealing


with aged sick and people who cannot get out is very serious and puts a heavy strain on other services provided by the local authority? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is estimated that about 25 per cent. to 70 per cent. of old people suffer from the need for chiropody, and if this could be provided other services could be relieved?

Mr. Vosper: I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Lady has said. I do not underestimate the need, but sufficient resources are not available to reconsider the matter.

Dr. Summerskill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider it for this reason? If he establishes chiropody services, particularly in some of the industrial areas, that inevitably will relieve pressure on the hospitals. Is he aware that there are other Questions on the Order Paper asking for services for aged people and that this service would immediately help to solve the other problems?

Mr. Vosper: I do appreciate that the welfare and domiciliary services may well relieve problems in the hospitals, but at the moment I have not available the considerable resources needed to start nationally a service of this nature.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities are giving chiropody service to old people.

Mr. Vosper: Four under the National Health Service and many at homes for the aged and infirm established under the National Assistance Act, 1948.

Dr. Stross: Is it not a fact that any local authority can establish a service of this type, but not directly—it has to be done by giving a grant to a voluntary agency? If that is the case, why is it not possible to allow the local authority to do it directly?

Mr. Vosper: I speak subject to correction, but I think local authorities can establish such a service under the National Assistance Act in old people's homes; but any service provided generally would be grant-aided, and I am not in a position to meet such requests at the moment.

Mrs. Slater: If the local authority could establish such a service in old people's

homes, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that very few old people could be dealt with? Is he aware that old folk who are tied to their homes and cannot get out need home helps, sick visitors and other assistance for their relief, whereas if they could be made mobile it would relieve the whole of the services dealing with the aged? Does it not seem foolish that, as in the case of Stoke-on-Trent, we were told by the former Minister that we can make a grant—which we do—to the meals on wheels service to provide a chiropodist service? Does that not seem a round-about way of doing the job?

Mr. Vosper: I hope my original Answer shows that I appreciated much of what the hon. Lady said, but I cannot make any further announcement at the moment.

Prescription Charges

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements he has made to overcome the hardship caused to diabetics and to others suffering from chronic illness by the existing prescription charges.

Mr. Vosper: It is open to the doctor to prescribe in quantities sufficient to last a reasonable time according to his assessment of medical need. Anyone who, on paying the ensuing charges, shows that he will suffer financial hardship in accordance with the National Assistance Board's standards can obtain a refund.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. Gentleman has given a formal Answer, but is he aware that we are hoping, now that we are glad to see a new face at the Ministry, that he is taking a different view of the matter? Does he realise that very great hardship is imposed in many cases where application cannot be made to the Assistance Board, and that there is great anxiety whether individual cases will get the amount of treatment they ought to have?

Mr. Vosper: I am aware of the arguments about the chronic sick. My predecessor took certain measures to relieve their problems. At the moment, I am not convinced that there are individual cases of hardship which need further action.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend say what he considers to be a reasonable period? Would he be a little more explicit and say three or four months, which is generally thought to be a reasonable period?

Mr. Vosper: I had in mind a period of three months.

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Health what reply he has sent to the Norfolk Executive Council in reply to their resolution expressing disapproval of the increase in charges on doctors' prescription forms from 1s. a form to 1s. an item.

Mr. Vosper: I am informing the Executive Council that the Government decided that the revised charges were necessary because of the present financial and economic situation, but that every effort is being and will be made to avoid hardship, and the working of the new arrangements will be closely watched with this in view.

Mr. Dye: In view of the fact that those who are responsible for the administration of the Health Service seem to feel that this new imposition is against the well-being of the service to the people, will not the Minister see whether he can find other ways and means of economy in prescriptions, if that is necessary, particularly in the prescribing of drugs?

Mr. Vosper: I have already said that I will watch the situation and review any individual case of hardship, but at the moment I am not convinced that there is any need to adopt a new approach.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that doctors are now being urged by many of their patients to strike off prescription items because the latter cannot pay the extra charge of 1s. per item, with the result that chemists in industrial areas have reported a slump of up to 60 per cent. in prescriptions since 1st December; and if he will therefore amend the new system so as to mitigate this hardship.

Mr. Vosper: The information at present before me does not confirm the statements made, and I see no reason to alter the basis on which prescription charges are now payable.

Mr. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman be frank with the House? Since he has received thousands of protests about the increased prescription charges, will he tell us whether he is determined to resist dealing with this awful scandal amongst the sick and poor of this country, whatever the consequences?

Mr. Vosper: I have already said that, from the advice which I have received, both officially and in a private capacity, I do not believe there are thousands of cases of real hardship; but I am prepared to examine any individual case which may be brought to me.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the very satisfactory assurances which the Minister has given, may I ask my right hon. Friend this question: if anybody who is outside the scope of the National Assistance Board can produce proof of hardship, has my right hon. Friend powers so to alter the Regulations that that particular case of hardship can be dealt with? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he can satisfy us on that point, there will be many very pleased people in this country and in the House?

Mr. Vosper: I should love to please my hon. Friend, but this is a rather hypothetical question. I ought to see the case itself.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many chronic sick, cancer patients, diabetics, those suffering from ulcers, and others with long-standing complaints are not receiving the treatment they need and which was intended by the National Health Act, 1948; that chemists are reporting a reduction of 50 per cent. in the prescriptions since the new charges were made on 1st December; how many doctors' and chemists' professional organisations have reported these facts to him; and what steps are being taken to assist these people.

Mr. Vosper: I have no evidence from professional organisations or elsewhere that patients are not receiving the treatment they need, or that there has been such a reduction in prescriptions dispensed. Where medicines are regularly needed, it is within a doctor's discretion to prescribe reasonable quantities. The National Assistance Board will refund


the charges, on application, to persons who cannot pay them without hardship, on the Board's standards.

Mr. Awbery: From the Questions which have been put to him this afternoon, and the number of people who have drawn the attention of their Members to these cases, is not the Minister satisfied that there is hardship among these people; that they are failing to go to the doctors because they have not the money to pay for the prescriptions, and will he take steps to see that the medical need of the patients, and not their pockets, is the criterion?

Mr. Vosper: I do not think I can add anything to my original replies, when I said that at present I have little evidence to indicate cases of hardship.

Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will pay particular attention to the position of diabetics and those in similar categories who, although not on the National Assistance scale, may find it difficult regularly to pay the charges for numbers of drugs; and can he say whether he has had any report about these classes so far?

Mr. Vosper: The next Question on the Order Paper relates to diabetics.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the Minister realise also the great danger of prescribing too large quantities of drugs?

Mr. Vosper: Yes, I am aware of that.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that diabetic patients have now to pay in some cases five times as much for a prescription as formerly; that some of these are old-age pensioners or people with a small fixed income, unable to meet the extra charges and who consequently reduce the number of their visits to the doctor below those essential for effective treatment; and if he will now take steps to abolish such charges.

Mr. Vosper: I am aware that in some cases items prescribed for a diabetic may involve charges of several shillings, but it is open to the doctor to prescribe quantities sufficient to last for a considerable period. Persons who cannot pay the charges without hardship in accordance with the standards laid down by the National Assistance Board can obtain refund from the Board. I have no evidence that patients are being deprived

of effective treatment. I see no reason to abolish the charges, the need for which has been explained to the House.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that, among the cases which have been brought to my attention, is that of a lady who previously got all she needed on one prescription at the old price and now has to pay 5s. for the same prescription because of the number of items it contains? Is he aware that the National Health Service Act was made for the sick and not the sick for the National Health Service Act? Will he take steps, in future, not to vivisect this Act so that he can find places where he can charge these poor people more than they ought to pay?

Mr. Vosper: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, the annual charge for stabilised diabetics should be in the neighbourhood of from 17s. to 27s., which is an increase, but not a very large one, over the previous charge.

Mr. John Hynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the House whether or not it is in his power to consider such cases of hardship which are not covered by the existing standards of the National Assistance Board? We have had several Answers today suggesting, in some cases, that he has such powers and in others that he has not—as in his last Answer. In other cases, he has said that the Question was hypothetical.

Mr. Vosper: What I had in mind was that my predecessor said that certain arrangements, such as prescribing for longer periods and in packs, would receive consideration. This is being done, but I cannot go further than that until I have further evidence.

Dr. Summerskill: As the Minister has devoted himself to the question of diabetics, will he reconsider this one case, for this reason? A diabetic has to have two kinds of insulin, needles, spirit and cotton wool. If the right hon. Gentleman grants an exception in this case, he will be helping a section of the public who have a very miserable life, apart altogether from the economic factors.

Mr. Vosper: I think it has been possible to provide one small pack for diabetics, but I cannot hold out much hope of going beyond that.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether the prescription charge must be repeated for each prescription where the medicine prescribed is for internal medication and will not keep for more than a few days, but prolonged treatment is necessary.

Mr. Vosper: I am not aware what medicine the hon. Member has in mind for use in the circumstances mentioned, but I will look into the matter if he will give me details. In general, a charge is payable for each repeated supply of medicine, except for certain specified preparations ordered for immediate and continuous treatment, which, owing to their pharmaceutical nature, need to be freshly prepared and supplied in separate containers on successive days.

Dr. Stross: May I thank the Minister for that reply and assure him that I will gladly send him specific examples? May I ask him this? Is he not aware that many medical men when prescribing for inoperable cancer cases use prescriptions such as mixtures of opium and aspirin, and that these keep for only a few days and must be made up afresh? Is it not unfair that such sufferers should be worse off than the class of people to whom he has referred when he said that he hopes that medical men will prescribe for three months?

Mr. Vosper: Some advice has been issued on this point, but I will gladly examine any evidence that the hon. Member may send to me.

Pharmaceutical Products (Prices)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether his negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry regarding the prices of their products supplied through the National Health Service have concluded.

Mr. Vosper: The current negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry concern the prices of proprietary preparations. Discussions have recently been concluded, and in the light of these the industry have revised their proposals, which I am now considering.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of that, would the Minister say when he will be in a position to announce the decisions which have been reached about prices?

Mr. Vosper: I am aware that these negotiations have been very protracted, but I have only just started to consider the position and could not advise the hon. Member of any date at this stage.

Swimming Baths (Poliomyelitis)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health what advice is given to local authorities as to the necessary precautions to be taken at public baths to minimise the risks of polio and meningitis.

Mr. Vosper: Advice on ventilation, avoidance of overcrowding and treatment of water at swimming baths was given in a Ministry publication in 1951 and in a medical memorandum on poliomyelitis sent to local authorities in 1954.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that this Question arises out of a recent incident in Islington when a child contracted polio and meningitis after swimming at the Tibberton swimming baths? Has he any statement to make on that incident?

Mr. Vosper: I am investigating that case, but I can say nothing further today.

Blood Transfusion Service, Derbyshire (Donors)

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Derbyshire Donor Panel of the National Blood Transfusion Service has had to cut out the collection of donors by omnibus in the Melbourne area due to economies consequent on petrol rationing; and what measures he proposes to ensure that this service is granted sufficient petrol to enable it to carry on its work.

Mr. Vosper: I am informed that this reduction is not due to petrol rationing, but is part of a general re-organisation of transport arrangements.

Mr. Champion: Is the Minister aware that his information on this matter is contrary to mine? I have a postcard in my hand, sent out by this Service on 18th January, which reads:
Due to economies enforced by petrol rationing, we shall not be able to send our bus for donors this time. This will probably mean a reduction in the numbers who attend. It will help a deal if you will make a special effort to attend, if it is possible to get in without the help of our bus.
Does this not indicate clearly that petrol shortage is causing difficulty?

Mr. Vosper: I am advised that the re-organisation of transport was planned in any case, and, of course, travelling expenses are fully reimbursed. In actual fact, the number of blood donors has gone up since the new arrangements were made, and I would rather wait to see how things go on.

Mr. Champion: As the advice which the right hon. Gentleman has received is different from the information which I have given him, will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Vosper: Yes, I will certainly look into that point.

Dental Estimates Board

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Health if he will review the working of the Dental Estimates Board.

Mr. Vosper: The Committee on Recruitment to the Dental Profession has recently commented favourably upon the efficiency of the Board. I am of course always ready to investigate individual complaints.

Mr. Peyton: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that in the dental profession there is a feeling that this organisation suffers from almost every weakness of over-centralisation; that, by its somewhat autocratic attitude towards the profession, the Board is doing a great deal to alienate from the Health Services the loyalty of the profession? Would he, if necessary, take on the rôle of the new broom in regard to this organisation?

Mr. Vosper: I will do my best to visit the Board at an early opportunity, but it is only fair to say that two independent committees have both come down in its favour.

National Health Service (Treatment of Foreigners)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Health the cost to the National Health Service of treating foreigners, during the year 1956; whether any sum was recouped from them, such as prescription charges; and whether he will now charge all foreigners the full economic price for any health services they receive in this country.

Mr. Vosper: I regret that the information referred to in the first part of the Question is not available, but the cost must certainly have been relatively very small. As regards the second part, foreigners receiving benefits under the National Health Service pay any applicable charges. In addition, hospital authorities have been asked not to make advance arrangements with foreigners for admission for free treatment. I am considering whether any further action is possible.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend take steps at an early date to get the information which he says is not now available? And will he have some regard to the psychological factor; that large numbers of relatively poor people, being called upon to pay much larger prescription charges, thoroughly resent "plushy" Americans and others coming to this country and getting this service on the backs of the British taxpayer?

Mr. Vosper: It will be comparatively easy to give information about the hospital services, but much more difficult, as my hon. Friend must realise, to give information regarding the general practitioner service. Apart from the matter of principle, it would be a difficult administrative act to make a charge.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he accepts the suggestion of his hon. Friend he will be excluding all the Hungarian refugees in this country from the National Health Service?

Mr. Fell: At least will my right hon. Friend consider the express exclusion from the benefits of the National Health Service in this country of those people who, like the right hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), have recently stated that they do not wish to accept British nationality and say that they are ashamed—[Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the answer and wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Cancer

Miss Vickers: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the increase in cancer of the breast in Great Britain; and what action he is taking for additional research into this problem.

Mr. Vosper: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the paper recently published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation. This does not suggest any new line of investigation, but extensive research into this problem is always going on.

Miss Vickers: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he is in consultation with countries such as Japan, where the figures have fallen? Is he aware of the Hamburg scheme, run in connection with the child welfare clinics, which has proved so beneficial in this type of case?

Mr. Vosper: I cannot follow my hon. Friend into all her supplementary. This report covered a very large number of years, and my information is that in the last five years there has been no rise.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend consider using the good offices of his Department to amalgamate the three cancer research organisations at present operating in this country, and will he also give his blessing to the organisation known as Cancer Anonymous which is studying this problem?

Mr. Vosper: This is a somewhat different and, I suspect, controversial question, and I would not wish to comment on it at this stage.

Mr. Nabarro: A very distinguished performance, if I may say so to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (UNITED STATES POLICY)

45. Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the policy announced by President Eisenhower in regard to United States military intervention in the Middle East and the possibility of a third world war arising therefrom, he will immediately cause to be removed from British soil all members of the United States armed forces and thereby lessen the danger of Britain being involved.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Would not the right hon. Gentleman regard the intervention of the United States in the Middle East as being fraught with extreme danger to world peace? Is it not time that the Government decided to remove the principal bases of the United States forces from British soil?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The policy announced by the President envisages the use of American forces in the Middle East solely to protect Middle Eastern countries and
against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international Communism,
and then only at the desire of the nation attacked. Therefore, far from provoking war, the purpose of this policy is to prevent it; and the United States forces in the United Kingdom are part of the deterrent against war.

Captain Pilkington: Should we in this country not feel considerably more secure if we were not flanked by Mr. Dulles?

Mr. S. Silverman: Could the right hon. Gentleman in any way clarify this curious phrase:
… armed aggression from any nation controlled by international Communism"?
Are we to understand that, if there were an aggression committed anywhere by national Communism, that would be all right?

Mr. Butler: Well, Sir, I cannot answer on behalf of another Government.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Does not the Lord Privy Seal agree that the presence of United States bases here involves this country in additional risks? Is it not, therefore, reasonable that we should ask the United States for far more assistance and information with regard to defence against atomic weapons than we are getting at present?

Mr. Butler: I do not doubt that the visit of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to the United States of America will be very valuable in this and many other regards.

Mr. Doughty: Is not the presence of the United States bases in this country not only for their protection but for ours as well, and for our mutual advantage?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (POLICE FORCE)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been given to the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations in respect of the proposal that a directly-recruited non-combatant United Nations constabulary be formed.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have nothing at present to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) on 4th December.

Mr. Rankin: Would it be the case that the Minister now thinks that a force of this nature is quite unnecessary in view of the fact that most parts of the earth are now protected by the United States of America?

Mr. Lloyd: The main reason why I have nothing to add at present on this matter is that I think we ought to see what is the future of the United Nations Emergency Force before we decide whether it is wise for us to take any initiative.

Oral Answers to Questions — HAUD AND RESERVED AREA (CONSULAR VISITS)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the British Consul in Harar last toured the Reserved Area and Haud; upon how many occasions he has done this in the past 12 months; and for what length of time in each instance.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Consul was unable, owing to shortage of staff, to make any extensive tour of the Reserved Area or the Haud during 1956. He and, during his absence on leave, the Acting Consul visited the areas a total of six times and a further visit, on 21st December, was made by the Vice-Consul. The Consul himself last visited the area on 29th November. The duration of these visits was, in three cases, of one day and,

in four cases, of two days. I do not regard this as sufficient. As the shortage of staff has now been remedied, there will be more extensive visiting in 1957.

Mr. Johnson: Bearing in mind the difficult conditions in this area and the need to stiffen British Somali morale on the border, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the more often our officials go to this area the better?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (TRADE)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish a White Paper indicating the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government in the last two years to secure a relaxation of strategic controls on Western trade with China.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. I have considered this question, but I do not think the publication of such a White Paper at this stage would be helpful.

Mr. Swingler: Does the Foreign Secretary not recall the numerous occasions on which we have been told that the Government stood for a progressive relaxation of these controls? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that, in the view of many people, hardly any steps at all have been taken to relax controls and that we are sustaining now and have sustained a large loss of trade to other Western countries as a result of the existence of these controls? What is the Foreign Secretary doing about them?

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I may make two or three comments in answer to that supplementary. First, any action in regard to China trade controls must be taken in consultation with our allies, not all of whom share our view, and that is one of the difficulties. Nevertheless, we have taken certain steps to relax the controls by making use of the exceptions procedure and, although the hon. Gentleman may not know it, there has been a substantial increase in British exports.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that there is a very great deal of quite undesirable obscurity about this position? Is he aware that very many people in the business world are exceedingly annoyed by


all the different processes that they have to go through in order to get licences for exports? Is the Minister further aware that, quite frequently, when they have got orders they find that one essential part of a piece of machinery cannot be included, so that the machine is useless? Would it not be a good thing if he told the House what the existing position is and what resistance he is meeting to getting relaxation of this embargo?

Mr. Lloyd: It was the right hon. Gentleman himself, I think, who, before the Recess, suggested the idea of a White Paper on this subject, having in mind the particular point which he has put forward, and it is from that point of view that I examined the possibility. I am told that it would be much better if individual traders who feel that they are in any uncertainty would apply to the Board of Trade to learn the position. I think it is better dealt with on the basis of individual cases rather than general principles. So far as the wider issue is concerned, I think hon. Members on both sides of the House know the difficulty there is about this matter.

Mr. Bevan: This is a very serious matter indeed. A great deal of trade has been lost to this nation because of resistance put up to the relaxation of the embargo by another country which shall be nameless. Are we going to sacrifice our interests all the while owing to our diplomatic failure to exert sufficient influence on our allies?

Mr. Lloyd: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting we should "go it alone" in this matter. In considering this question, one has to consider the balance of advantage, and the balance of advantage is to try to get the greatest possible agreement with our allies on this matter. Nevertheless, by using the exceptions procedure we have secured substantial relaxation.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend look again into the whole list of these goods? Her Majesty's Government are surely in danger of making their position somewhat illogical when they categorise tractors as being usable for military purposes, while at the same time we have, I understand, exported tanks which are not considered to be of any military use to the Middle East?

Mr. Lloyd: If my hon. Friend will bring forward any specific case, I will certainly try to deal with it. So far as agricultural tractors are concerned, there have been certain exports of those to China.

Mr. S. Silverman: In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to the undesirability of "going it alone", may I ask whether he does not draw a very important distinction between the desirability of not "going it alone" in matters of international policy and the great desirability in a competitive world of "going it alone" as every other nation does in the matter of international trade?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that this is not solely a question of trade. If it were, it would be very much easier to deal with; but there are much wider political considerations involved.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Foreign Secretary to tell those of us who are concerned in this matter to approach the Board of Trade who will help us? I have been to the Board of Trade, and their help was to tell me that they were tied by the policy which is now being followed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point of order in that.

HUNGARY (ARRESTED BRITISH STUDENTS)

Mr. Bevan: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the four British students arrested by the Hungarian authorities.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. The four students referred to by the right hon. Gentleman left this country on 1st January of this year, it was believed for a visit to Austria. They were expected back about 18th January. Mr. Cripps, the father of Judith Cripps, received a letter dated 11th January from his daughter, from Belgrade, stating that the party was motoring home through Hungary. They did not return when expected.
Accordingly, on 23rd January, the British Missions in Belgrade and Budapest were instructed to make inquiries about their whereabouts. The Ambassador at Belgrade replied, as a result of his inquiries, that the party had obtained


Hungarian transit visas there on 14th January and had left for Hungary the same day.
The British Minister at Budapest made repeated inquiries and reported on 25th January that he believed them to be imprisoned in Budapest. This was confirmed the following day by the Hungarian Foreign Ministry in a Note, a translation of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The Minister has made repeated requests to be allowed to see these four people. He has also asked that they be allowed to receive British legal assistance. These requests have not so far been granted, but they are still being pressed.
The Hungarian Note states that one of the young men was a member of the British Military Intelligence Corps and another served in the Field Security Service of the British Army. The implication was that they were spies. The facts are that, during their National Service, one of them took a Russian language course with the Intelligence organisation, which occupied his whole time. The other took the usual Field Security course.
I can state categorically that none of them received any instructions from any Department of Her Majesty's Government either to act as spies or to indulge in any improper activity.
So far as the other charges are concerned, I think that the Hungarian Government are in danger of making themselves look ridiculous.
I hope that all four will be speedily released, or, if that is not done, that the Hungarian Government will at least bring them at once to fair, and public, trial, at which proper facilities will be afforded for their defence.
I am sure that the whole House will sympathise with the relatives of these four people in their anxiety.

Mr. Bevan: I should like to associate the Opposition with the observations which the Foreign Secretary has just made, and to say that, for our part, we think that the Hungarian Government should exercise a little sense of humour in this matter. From what I can gather about the facts of the case, it is hardly likely that these four were engaged in espionage in a second-hand motor car which broke down on several occasions and which had to be started with the

assistance of a tow by the Russians themselves. It seems to me that such espionage activities belong not to serious international relations but to a Mack Sennett comedy.

Mr. Lloyd: I agree entirely with the perspective into which the right hon. Gentleman has thought to put this matter.

Captain Waterhouse: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear in mind the four people who are at present in prison in Egypt under charges for similar offences equally trumped up?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Following is the text of Note dated 26th January received from the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

On 17th January, 1957, the authorities of the Ministry for Internal Affairs, on the basis of reports by the Hungarian population, took into custody J. R. Cooper, C. A. Lord, B. D. Lord and Judith U. Cripps, British subjects. When they were taken into custody they were found in the possession of forged documents dated 12th November, 1956, and made out in the name of the Budapest Soviet Military Command.

At the investigation of their case it was found that J. R. Cooper was a member of the British Military Intelligence organisation, the Intelligence Corps, and B. D. Lord served at the Field Security Service of the British Army it was also found that they had brought messages and letters from those members of the so-called Hungarian University Revolutionary Students' Council who had defected to Britain, to members of the Students' Council who are still in Budapest.

Their task was to establish contact between these two groups. According to their statement they sought to gather information on the Hungarian and Soviet armies and the Hungarian political and economic situation.

J. R. Cooper and C. A. Lord had already been in Hungary without Hungarian entry-visas at the beginning of November, 1956, and both of them had participated with counter-revolutionary groups in the building of barricades. Returning from Hungary, both of them gave false reports to the British Press and radio about the situation in Hungary, and had slanderous statements published about the Hungarian People's Republic. As soon as the investigation of their case has been completed the above-named persons will be turned over to the Hungarian Public Prosecutors' Office.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Homicide Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — HOMICIDE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress 24th January, 1957.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 10.—(FORM OF SENTENCE OF DEATH FOR MURDER.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: The Attorney-General and the Home Secretary will have noticed that there are not any Amendments on the Notice Paper to Clause 10.
In all parts of the Committee, we are, I think, in complete agreement with the terms of the Clause. There are, however, certain things which are implied, or not implied, which give me some concern. While the Clause makes it quite clear that when the judge actually condemns a prisoner to death he is to use only the words
shall suffer death in the manner authorised by law
the Clause does disregard one or two questions which have hitherto concerned a great number of people. Further, there are matters here involved which gave concern to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment.
I wish to refer, first, to the use of the black cap. The Commission made several references to this matter, and, in paragraph 697, said:
As we have said, the wearing of the black cap is governed by custom. The Judges are under no obligation to assume it, and in England they have sometimes refrained from doing so when they felt that its use would be out of place. On the other hand, all the Judges were in favour of retaining this custom. The Lord Justice General told us that, at any rate in Scotland, this was not only for sentimental reasons, but because the assumption of the black cap symbolised the fact that the judge was not expressing a private judgment, but was merely an instrument of the State and some Judges who had conscientious objections to the death sentence desired 'to safeguard themselves by assuming the full cloak of judicial officialdom in pronouncing the sentence'
The Commission then went on to say:
We consider that this matter may well be left to the discretion of individual Judges, and we therefore make no recommendation about

it, or about the use in England of the words 'And may the Lord have mercy on your soul' and of the chaplain's invocation, which are also governed only by tradition and custom.
Although we are, in this Bill, laying down nothing whatever about the use of the black cap and nothing whatever about the use of the words I have just quoted, I would, with great respect and without any impertinence, suggest to Her Majesty's judges—and I hoped that I might have some support from the Treasury Bench—that they should take the initiative and no longer use the black cap.
I believe it to be desirable that a custom which has provided drama in the courts of law when the sentence of death is pronounced should be abolished. On this side of the Committee we are disappointed that, so far, our arguments and Amendments have been resisted. We have not sought to make it illegal for the black cap to be used. We have not sought to ensure, by Amendment of the Bill, that a judge should refrain from its use. Indeed, I cannot see how that provision could be included in the Bill. But it would be a good thing if an impression were given by this Committee to Her Majesty's judges that the House of Commons would regard it as desirable if, in future, the black cap were not used when pronouncing the death penalty.
I hope that my few words will receive support from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I wonder whether we could be helped to understand how this custom originated. I have heard of different forms of its origin and I have sometimes wondered whether it was merely because the name of God is invoked that the head is covered, as it was 2,000 years ago on entry into the early church, before St. Paul made up his mind that it was unnecessary for man to cover the head but that woman should do so on entering church. It would be interesting to know whether that is the reason.
The words proposed in this Clause are welcome to all of us. They are more dignified and are an improvement on what has gone before.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I do not want to pursue this interesting discussion much further, except


to say that we would like to hear from the Government whether they have taken an opportunity of consulting Her Majesty's judges or whether they will do so before the Third Reading of the Bill and let us know if the judges still take the view which they took formerly, that this procedure should be followed.
I want to raise two other points. First, I wonder whether the Government have considered whether it would not be better to include the words which were included in the 1948 Act, so that the form of the sentence would be:
… suffer death unless Her Majesty should otherwise order in the manner authorised by law.
I suggest that because it is important to recognise the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. I have always taken the view that this should be recognised as part of the penal administration. Obviously, there will be a place for the Royal Prerogative even when this Bill becomes law. It is clear from the discussions we have had on Part II of the Bill that there will be cases in which it will be proper that a reprieve should be granted. That being so, I should have thought it would be better to recognise, in the court in which sentence is passed, as it has been in our discussions on this Bill, that the exercise of the Royal Prerogative is part of the administration of the penal law.
My second question to the Government is whether they have considered the question of burial, because this was a matter that was examined by the Royal Commission. I am not sure, but my recollection is that this is a matter which involves legislation. I think it was the view of the Commission that, except where there were religious scruples against such a form of burial, it would be better to recognise cremation. I have an open mind about this and I merely ask the Government whether they have considered it. If they have decided that there are reasons against accepting the advice of the Royal Commission, we should hear them.

3.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I am grateful for the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite have approached this Clause and for the suggestions that have been made. I am

sorry that I am unable to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). I had no warning of it, and there was nothing on the Notice Paper which would have caused me to find out.
I imagine—this is purely speculative—that the use of the black cap arose because it is part of the full dress of Her Majesty's judges. Certainly, the custom of assuming it when the capital sentence is pronounced is a very ancient one. Hon. Members will know that, formerly, certainly long before the time this custom originated, the capital sentence was pronounced for a very wide range of offences—I believe, in fact, all felonies at one time. I am sorry that I cannot answer the question specifically, but undoubtedly it is a traditional ceremony in our administration of criminal justice.
Before dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) I turn to the questions put by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). So far as I know, Her Majesty's judges have not been consulted about this matter, nor do I think it would he appropriate for the Government to approach them upon it. The approach of the Government is really that of the Royal Commission, that the matter is best left to the discretion of Her Majesty's judges. I am sure that the remarks made today will come to their attention and will be given proper weight.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North also asked me about the question of burial and whether that took place on legislation. I have not got the Statute before me, but I am reasonably certain that it is legislative. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General assures me that this is so. It is laid down, I believe, in the Capital Punishment Amendment Act, which stipulates that there should be burial within the precincts of the prison.
Now I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Salford, West. The form of the sentence laid down in the Bill is that suggested by the Royal Commission, as I have said. Therefore, I think it has commended itself to the Committee. The reason the further words that were in the 1948 Act—"unless Her Majesty should otherwise order"—were omitted here was because since that date the Royal Commission has sat and considered the matter.
My right hon. Friend considers that it would not be appropriate to issue directions on this matter to the judges. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, their feeling was that this traditional ceremony should remain, but I think it can be safely left to their discretion, particularly as I do not doubt that what has been said on this occasion will be drawn to their notice and that they will give proper weight to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(NOTICE OF EXECUTION.)

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move in page 5, line 35, after "can", to insert:
and in no case less than one week before the date fixed.

The Chairman: I think that the next two Amendments to line 35 can be taken with this Amendment.

Mr. Hale: Yes, Sir Charles.
The Bill, at present, while it abolishes the setting up of a notice of execution outside the prison, makes provision in this Clause for the Home Secretary to give notice of the date and time of the execution. I think that all of us would agree with that part of the Bill which is designed to prevent the morbid collection of heterogeneous humanity outside a prison at eight o'clock on the morning of an execution. Many of us would wish that the ceremony itself were completely abolished, so that there would be no point in such a gathering. But there is an important point about this. If we do things in a hole and corner way, and if we abolish publicity altogether, it may be difficult sometimes for those people who want to make an effort to save the life of a condemned man to be able to do so in time.
Unless there is adequate publicity and adequate information, as Members on both sides of the Committee will realise, it is almost impossible to do anything effective until the case has gone to the Court of Criminal Appeal, where murder cases almost invariably do go, and until the Court of Criminal Appeal has announced its decision.
It is only then, after people have become appraised of the decision of the

Court of Criminal Appeal, that there can be any sort of organisation to represent to the Home Office or to those exercising the Royal Prerogative the state of the public mind on the matter. It is, of course, sometimes necessary, and sometimes of extreme importance, to call the attention of the Home Office or the Home Secretary to matters which could not be given in evidence at the trial because they were not relevant to the trial at issue but which are eminently relevant to the question of the execution.
One cannot, at a trial, and when pleading not guilty to a capital charge, introduce considerations of the mental health and the psychological past of the accused. But all these matters are eminently proper to be considered by the Home Secretary and, although he has the advice of experts on these matters, and of the prison officials, there is often much which is known to the intimate acquaintances of the accused, or to the medical officer of the accused or people who have had experience of the accused's background and circumstances, which is not necessarily evidence.
It is obvious that the more psychiatric the case the less likely the accused himself is able to convey the necessary information. The more serious the problems from which the accused suffers, the less likely is it that full information will have been in the possession of the authorities. In those circumstances, it is, of course, extremely important that the Bill should make some provision for public notification of the date fixed for execution, so that those concerned in making representations on the consideration of the execution and the sentence shall know just how long they have in which to do it and how much time is available.
I would have thought that my hon. Friends who drafted this Amendment, and who drafted it in the shape of a minimum, have been a little short in the period they had put. If the Amendment is accepted, the Clause will state that the Home Office must give notification of the time and date of the execution as soon as conveniently possible and, in any event, not less than seven days before the date fixed for the execution, and shall also publish a notice in the London Gazette in addition to such other forms of information as the Home Secretary himself thinks proper.
Without the Amendment, it is possible, although I do not suggest seriously that it would be likely, that the intimation might be too short and might not reach the people who should know in time. Therefore, it is our duty in this Committee to make sure that every proper precaution is taken for those purposes, and it is with that end in view that my hon. Friends have put down these three Amendments which, I should have thought, could be readily accepted by the Government.

Sir Lionel Heald: I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in moving the Amendment. There was one point which I did not quite follow. He said—and I think that there are a great many of us who would agree and very few who would disagree—that it is most undesirable and unpleasant that there should be large crowds who are apt to collect on the occasion of executions. There are also certain people, as we know, who take the occasion to make a demonstration. They have done so in the past, with rather unpleasant results.
It seems to me, in those circumstances—and I am only asking for information and trying to be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman—that he would not want to have the place of execution published. For the purposes he had in mind—those who wish to take any steps about the matter—it would be quite unnecessary for them to have any notice of the place, because the only person who could do anything about stopping the execution at the last minute, or anything of that kind, would be the Home Secretary. It cannot be done except through him and, therefore, one certainly could not be making it more difficult in that respect.
I intended to ask whether it was really necessary that the place should be published in advance, which would be almost inviting people to attend and which, so far as I can see, would serve no useful purpose. The hon. Gentleman, who is always so clear about these statements and who has put his case even more shortly than he usually does, did not mention that and I wonder whether there is any reason for the omission.

Mr. Hale: I would have thought that there was a great deal in what the right

hon. and learned Gentleman says. It does not seem to me to be very vital. I do not see how you can conceal the place. Right hon. and hon. Friends of mine are responsible for these Amendments and I am not deputed to argue about them; but I am much impressed by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, although I do not see how we could conceal the place of execution. In most cases the trial takes place at a provincial assize where everyone knows the prison, and, as the Attorney-General has already said, the execution and burial take place in the precincts of the prison to which the man is brought.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I should like to say a word in support of the three Amendments from a slightly different point of view, although I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has said.
The purpose of this Clause is to alter the present practice and, no doubt, the Royal Commission, in making this recommendation, had in mind many of the reasons offered in support of these Amendments to this proposal by my hon. Friend and by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald).
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West put most emphasis on the desirability of having as much notice as possible before the execution takes place, so that anyone who wished to make any representation, or put in relevant information which he thought the Home Secretary should have before the execution actually took place, would have ample opportunity of drawing his attention to it. Of course, that would be of itself ample justification of these Amendments.
The Amendment which has been moved seeks to make sure that under subsection (1) of the Clause there shall be at least a week's notice, and the other two Amendments have as their object to bring subsection (2) into line with subsection (3). Subsection (3) provides that when the execution has taken place, and the coroner's inquisition has been held, notice of that fact shall be published in the London Gazette, whereas subsection (2), which deals not with the notice after the execution but with the notice before the execution, provides only that the


Secretary of State, as early as he conveniently can, shall publish, in such manner as he thinks fit, the time and place fixed for the execution. The purpose of the Clause with the three Amendments is that that notice, like the notice after the execution, shall be given when notice is being given that the execution is to take place.
4.0 p.m.
The whole idea of the scheme is to lessen public knowledge of and public interest in the fact that the execution is to take place, that a sentence of death has been passed, and that a sentence of death has been executed. The effects of the Amendments will be rather to increase the notice to the public compared with what would be the case if the Clause were left unamended, and I think that that is a good thing so far as it goes. I am quite unable to understand on what principle the Government hold that in certain cases the execution of the death penalty is a social necessity and, at the same time, believe it to be right to do it in as secret, not to say secretive, a manner as possible.
The Government's case—it is the only rational case—for retaining the death penalty in any circumstances is that there are certain kinds of murder for which it is required. The Government define these murders as connected with public order. No doubt they know what they mean even if the rest of us find it difficult to interpret their definition. At any rate, the Government have devised for themselves a principle which they understand and which they apply to two or three executions a year.
In the case of those two or three executions a year the Government say that the deterrent effect of actually executing the death penalty is so certain and so useful that this is a penalty with which we cannot dispense altogether. I cannot see how that argument is consistent with the view that the fact of execution should be withdrawn as much as possible from public notice. That is another controversial anomaly arising out of the Bill.
It is very difficult to understand what the Government's mind really is about these matters. Do the Government say that the death penalty is a deterrent or do they not? Are they defending it on any other ground than that of deterrence? From what we have heard so far the

answer to that is, "No". The Government justify a distinction between capital murders as they are to be under the Bill and non-capital murders as they are to be under the Bill on the ground that, whatever may be said about the rest of them, in these few cases at any rate the deterrent effect is clear, that it acts in these cases although it may be more doubtful whether or not it acts in other cases.
In that case, what is the purpose of withholding the information from the public? How does one secure the maximum deterrent effect of a penalty which, so far as it lies in one's power, the public never knows one is going to inflict or that one has inflicted? This does not seem to be any more rational than so many of the other things that we have been, and shall be, discussing.
I should like to know what the purpose is here. Is it to reduce public excitement? Then, is public excitement about the death penalty a bad thing? Is it to reduce morbid curiosity? Then it is conceded, is it, that the infliction of the death penalty arouses or intensifies morbid curiosity? Apparently, one wants to prevent the notice going on the prison wall that an execution is to take place. Evidently one does not want to give very long notice about it. One wants to publish the fact that the execution is going to take place, not in the London Gazette, as one publishes the notice after it has taken place, but in some other undefined manner left to the discretion of the Home Secretary. Why?
The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey says that it is to prevent—I dare say he may be right—a crowd gathering outside the prison. Is that regarded as an unhealthy thing? I certainly regard it as unhealthy. It is one of the arguments against the retention of the death penalty that the damage that it does to public morale far outweighs any beneficial effect, so far as there is any evidence of any beneficial effect at all. That is one of the reasons why we want to abolish the death penalty. However, if one says that there is a beneficial effect which outweighs the disadvantages of morbid curiosity, popular excitement and the rest, how does one obtain this beneficial effect unless the public knows before, knows at the time, and knows afterwards about the execution? Surely it is not going to be contended that one can have


a deterrent effect if the thing is done in secret, in a hole-and-corner fashion.
The only sound justification for keeping the news from the public is that in our hearts and souls we are thoroughly and completely ashamed of it and want to get it over quickly, quietly, in silence and in darkness and without any public knowledge of it at all so far as we can prevent it. I should like an explanation from the Government. I should like to know how the Government reconcile the desire to keep the news from the public, because of the damage it does to people, with the desire to retain the penalty because it deters people from committing an offence.

Sir Beverley Baxter: The hon. Member and I usually think very closely on these lines. Surely, part of the case against hanging has been the debasing effect on the public. Surely, one of the most regrettable, unpleasant and degrading features of hanging was the scene outside the prison. Consequently, in this gradual retreat of the Government—we shall do away with hanging some day, anyway—I commend what the Government are doing. Indeed, I think that it is really in keeping with what the hon. Gentleman has said in many debates. I support in principle what the Government are doing here.

Mr. Silverman: I must be expressing myself with a singular lack of clarity if the hon. Gentleman thinks that I differ from what he says. He is right. He and I have both on many occasions said—I am still fully persuaded of it and am glad that he is—that one of the principal arguments against the retention of the death penalty in any circumstances is, as he describes it, its debasing effect on the public mind. I am all for getting rid of it. I hope that I am not being understood to say that I am not in favour of getting rid of it.
What puzzles me is the Government's attitude. So far as I have understood the retentionist case—it is straightforward and easy to understand, whether one agrees with it or not—the retentionists have never denied that it has a debasing effect. Indeed, they have always said that it certainly has that, just as there are other things about it that no rational or humanitarian man would willingly retain if he could do without it. The retentionist case has always been that this debasing

effect on the public mind is the price that has to be paid for retaining the deterrent with which it is felt we cannot justifiably part.
The Government are here trying to make the best of both worlds, unless there is a way of reconciling the two things. They are trying to say that it is debasing to the public mind and a deterrent to the public mind and that we should remove the debasement by keeping the knowledge of it from the public as much as possible. I want to know how, in that case, they retain the deterrent effect.
The hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter) talked about a gradual retreat. The Government say that there is no possibility of a gradual retreat and no possibility of a compromise, that we either abolish or retain the death penalty. It is relevant to ask them from time to time how they argue black and white in the same breath and at the same time.

Mr. Ede: I support the Amendments and I will not try to draw red herrings across the trail that my hon. Friends have so effectively blazed by raising one or two other points which arise on this issue.
The Clause and the Amendments seem to relate to an idea that the Home Secretary is responsible for executions. Nothing of the sort is true. The greatest Home Secretary ever to hold office was Sir William Harcourt, who was once asked, by one of his civil servants, what would happen if the high sheriff for the county, who fixed the date for execution, fixed a date fifty years ahead, as it is within his power to do. Sir William said that he thought English civilisation would be sufficiently strong to deal with the high sheriff.
The Home Secretary will be put in some difficulty by this arrangement, unless instructions are also given to the high sheriff. The high sheriff has to inform the Home Secretary when he proposes to hold the execution. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, in his short stay at the Home Office, has yet been presented with a set of papers showing why it is desirable that the Home Secretary should have rather more powers about executions than he now has and describing some of the difficulties which used to arise in the old days, when the high sheriff provided a rope which


was not strong enough, or one which was too strong. There were other difficulties. I should have thought that in dealing with this matter, the position might well have been made clear and the responsibility for the whole of the arrangement placed fairly and squarely on the Home Secretary.
I know, of course, that the Amendments cannot be accepted. If anything showing so much common sense were to be done we should have to have more than a formal Report stage, and the one thing on which the Government are determined is that there shall not be more than a formal Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman is not merely Home Secretary and Lord Privy Seal; he is also the Leader of the House. It is not playing fair with the House to present a Bill on so controversial a subject with the determination that there shall be no adequate Report stage, that there shall be only one discussion on detail.
These Amendments deserve to be incorporated in the Bill. The position of the Home Secretary generally about the fixing of the date and the controlling of an execution should have been dealt with in accordance with modern facilities, with the Home Secretary exercising his influence usefully, but I regret that it is useless to do more than mention these matters to the Committee.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I, too, regret that it is obviously and for constitutionally irrelevant reasons impossible to accept Amendments however they may appeal to the Government. This has been said and requires repeating and repeating, because it is a disgraceful situation in which we find ourselves.
Here is a matter which Government after Government have said is a matter of individual conscience, in which each hon. Member should be free to express his own conscience in the Lobby as he thinks fit. It is then dealt with by a Bill. That Bill is not an ordinary Bill which could be considered in Committee upstairs. It is a compact and covenant reached by the Patronage Secretary and his dissidents and, as such, cannot be touched in one iota because that would open up the bargain.
Upon that basis, on a matter of conscience, we are presented with a fait accompli in which in no circumstances, however reasonable, however sensible, however discussion may show it desirable from all our points of view, will one alteration be made. That is outrageous, yet it is that with which we are faced.

Dr. Stross: I want to refer to a very narrow issue and to put to the Home Secretary and his colleagues on the Front Bench opposite that if there is one thing that ought to be avoided it is that the relatives of the man who is to be hanged should not be pestered by people who wish to gain information from them because they have not been able to get it in another way. Obviously, all of us prefer that the Press should be used to make the notification, rather than that the notification should be posted outside a prison.
In supporting the Amendments, we ask for a reasonable length of time—a week as a minimum—which will tend to make it almost certain that if the Press knows when the event is to occur the relatives will not be disturbed and approached for information. We all accept that morbid curiosity is inevitable if there are to be public executions, or if executions take place and there is notification of time and place. I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) is not right in saying that it would be reasonable not to give the place although giving the time and date.
It is not a bad thing to protect the public from curiosity or participation in a morbidity for which the public is not to be blamed and for which it cannot be blamed. It has always been the case, whether it is breaking at the wheel, auto da fe or simply decapitation. Why should we blame the public for that which is almost inevitable? We are not all alike. Many people would run far from witnessing or being in the precincts of such activity, but others are fatally attracted. We should protect them if we think it is wrong that they should go there. It may be that the right thing is not to make a declaration of place, although we should give ample notice at the time. As I have said, it is our duty to see that we protect relatives from being pestered about an event which is so sorrowful and tragic for them.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: I should like to make a special plea to the Home Secretary to use this opportunity to show that the worst fears of my right hon. Friend and others are unfounded. At an earlier stage the hon. and learned Gentleman said—I think that I am quoting him accurately, if not verbatim—that he knew of no deal in respect of the Bill. He has here a very good opportunity to show that he is prepared to accept some Amendments, as he has not so far done, for the simple reason that, unlike most of those which have gone before, they are in no way designed to counter the Government's intentions or to negative most of the arguments behind them; they seek merely to give somewhat more precision to them.
I presume that the Clause and subsection with which we are dealing have their origin in the observations of the Royal Commission upon the subject of publicity in connection with executions. I think that my hon. Friends would agree that we, like the Government, prefer a system suggested by the Commission to that which has obtained so far, always assuming that the death penalty is to continue in operation and is to be imposed from time to time.
It is interesting to notice that although the relevant paragraphs in the Commission's Report do not enter into any detail, and do not even seek to bring to the surface the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), whether, in giving publicity to executions, we are seeking to affect the deterrent in the public mind in some way. It is implicit in paragraphs 786 to 789 that nowadays we do not think that any such thing is useful, and that all we are seeking is clarity and precision of information.
We are not seeking in any way to impress the public mind with the solemnity or horror of the occasion, although that may well have once been the objective just as, presumably, it was once the objective of public executions. These paragraphs could not be less emotional or colder, and the arrangement proposed is clearly designed simply to give adequate information in time and with sufficient clarity.
I hope that the Minister will comment upon the point raised by my right hon.

Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about the relations of the sheriff and the Home Secretary, Paragraph 786 of the Commission's Report states that under the existing system
The date of execution is also notified to the Press by the Sheriff.
In paragraph 788 the Commission recommends that
a Press notice should be issued by the Home Office as soon as the Sheriff has fixed the date of execution and notified the Home Office of it.
From that it appears that the sheriff retains responsibility for everything except giving to the Press the news of the date which he has fixed.
Subsection (2) says that
Where sentence of death for murder is to be executed in accordance with that Act, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, as early as he conveniently can, to publish in such manner as he thinks fit.
Apart from the question of the relationship between the sheriff and the Home Secretary, those of us who support the Amendment feel that it is better to be more precise than to use a phrase such as
as early as he conveniently can
and, rather, to fix a date at least a week ahead. The same motive lies behind the second Amendment, to which the third is consequential. It is suggested that a notice to the Press is all that is required but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne pointed out, subsection (3) specifically requires an entry to be made in the London Gazette. It seems to me that what we should be seeking here is not public propaganda but due official publicity, so that anyone who wishes to know can know where to look for these particulars. It seems right that notice of a coming execution should also be included in the London Gazette.
If there is any administrative inconvenience or difficulty about this I should be glad to be told about it. We are not suggesting any real change in the Bill in this respect; our object is purely and simply to make sure that, in addition to the existing provisions, one particular publication will always carry this information, so that those who wish to know about such things will know where to look. For those reasons I hope that, for the first time in these debates, we shall have a forthcoming reply from the Government.

Mr. Simon: The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) has rightly said that these Amendments raise no question of principle between the two sides of the Committee—and by that I mean between those opposing the Bill and those supporting it. It is a question of machinery. If the Government feel that they cannot accept the Amendments—as they do—it is not for the reasons suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but for reasons which have already been given by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).

Mr. S. Silverman: The only reason lie gave was that the Government wanted to avoid more than a formal Report stage.

Mr. Simon: I was referring to the position of the sheriff in the machinery. The Government have proposed that the death penalty should be retained for certain murders because they believe that those are types of murders which particularly affect public order, and in respect of which the deterrent of the death penalty is likely to be effective. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said, we must recognise that an execution is likely to arouse a morbid interest and, as he put it, a morbid collection of humanity at the scene of execution. But it is not only a capital trial and execution which does that; every day in the Press we see many trials reported with a morbid avidity although they do not involve death in any form.
I did not catch the observation which the hon. Member for Oldham, West made just then. I am sure that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is right—

Mr. Hale: I simply said that we saw morbid crowds gathering like vultures outside No. 10 Downing Street a few days ago, to watch not a demise but a somewhat phoenix-like birth.

Mr. Simon: In all cases we have to balance the deterrent against the morbid interest which is inevitably aroused at the scenes of crimes, trials and penal sanctions. On the other hand, although we want to reduce the element of morbidity—the publicity which attracts morbid interest—we must not fall into the danger of having a secretive procedure. We have to see that sufficient publicity

is given so that there shall be time for proper representations to be made to the Secretary of State to assist him in the advice which he tenders to the Crown.
4.30 p.m.
It is only after appeal, very often, that representations can be made, and then many matters which will be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State will be matters which have not been raised at the trial and may be quite inconsistent, and properly inconsistent, with the defence that was properly raised at the trial. Much is known, particularly in psychiatric cases, which I think will probably be fewer after this Bill, in view of Clause 3, which can only he known to intimates, and their representations are of value to my right hon. Friend and those who hold his office in coming to his decision and fulfilling his painful and difficult task of advising on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.
Therefore, on the one hand, one has the desirability of reducing, if possible, the area of morbid interest, and, on the other, one has to see that there is adequate publicity so as to obviate a miscarriage of justice, so that every mitigating factor will be brought in good time to the notice of the Home Secretary. I think that that answers the question which my right hon. and learned Friend asked me, and which was echoed by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), why we were giving notice of the place of execution.
May I say, first, that the Government's proposals are based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which made no recommendation that there should be any lack of publicity as to the place? Secondly, if one withheld publicity as to the place of execution, it might very well, and I think it probably would, excite more curiosity and stimulate inquiries as to where that place should be.
It seems to the Government that, on balance, it would be desirable that there should be publicity as to the place of execution, even if it means that a crowd might collect there, simply attracted by the morbid interest of this fatal scene, rather than that the same crowd, or a larger crowd, might well collect if the knowledge was withheld, inquiries were made, and sleuth-hounds put on the


track and then, as a revelation, the venue is divulged.
Lastly, I think this might commend itself to the Committee. It is right, the Committee may feel, that the relatives of the convicted man should know where he is to meet his end. I do not think that I need expatiate on that. Hon. Members will know the sort of circumstances to which I am referring, and it is these considerations which I think went to bring about the recommendations of the Royal Commission, on which the Government's proposals are founded.
The present practice, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields indicated, is that it is the sheriff on whom rests the duty of fixing the date of execution, and he does so as soon as possible after the sentence has been passed, or, if there has been an unsuccessful appeal, as soon as possible after the determination of the appeal. He immediately notifies the Home Office, so that the notification of the date of execution is normally received within two days of the sentence or of the determination of the appeal, though occasionally it is longer, and sometimes four or five days have elapsed. When that knowledge comes to the Home Office—

Mr. Ede: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there is an obligation on the sheriff to do that?

Mr. Simon: At present—and this is the real reason why the Amendment cannot be accepted—there is no obligation on the sheriff to do that at all. Of course, as always, and as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the only sanction in these matters is to remove the sheriff.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted Sir William Harcourt. There is no obligation on the sheriff to fix the date of execution at any close date; he may fix it for fifty years ahead. The practice, and it is an invariable one, is to fix the date of execution so that it falls in the week following the third Sunday after conviction or after the determination of the unsuccessful appeal.
The right hon. Gentleman will see that no fewer than 14 or more than 18 days elapse between the determination of the appeal and the execution, and the Home Office, therefore, is bound to receive considerably more than a week's notice of

the date of execution. The requirement in the Bill is that the Home Secretary shall—
as early as he conveniently can
ensure that the information is issued to the public.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Gentleman has used words suggesting that the sheriff is bound to do this. Who binds the sheriff? Personally, I know of no Statute that binds him. There is a practice, and one of the weaknesses of the whole situation is that, while the Home Secretary has duties, the sheriff apparently has no duty to correlate his efforts with the Home Secretary, which is laid down by Statute.

Mr. Simon: That is exactly what I said. There is no statutory enactment to bind the sheriff to give the information. He does it in accordance with practice, and the sanction, if he fails, is to remove the sheriff; but that, of course, no Home Secretary, fortunately, has found it necessary even to suggest.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that if we appointed enough abolitionist sheriffs there would be no need to abolish the death penalty by Statute at all?

Mr. Simon: I need hardly say that that was not my suggestion.

Mr. George Isaacs: Is the sheriff in such a position that it is impossible by Statute or by decision of this House to give him instructions by means of regulations? Is this matter completely outside the control of Parliament altogether?

Mr. Simon: I need hardly tell anyone of the Parliamentary experience of the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) that that is quite within the competence of Parliament.

Sir B. Baxter: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend this question? He has said that it is essential that the place where the execution is to be carried out should be made public as quickly as possible, and I agree with him. Does he really suggest that in this modern age of communications the issuing of a notice to 500 or 600 people bears any relation to making the information public? Surely it should be issued at once to the Press.

Mr. Simon: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter), because that is precisely the purpose of the Bill, and it is for that reason that the Government are resisting the Amendment.
What the Bill suggests is that the present practice, which is to post up notices outside the prison, should be abrogated, and that, instead, there should be the procedure laid down which was suggested by the Royal Commission, namely, that it should be the duty of the Secretary of State
as early as be conveniently can"—
which is bound to be more than a week before the date of execution—
to publish in such a manner as he thinks fit"—
which means, in this context, the Press—
the time and place fixed for the execution.

Sir B. Baxter: I offer my apologies to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Paget: I was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman reply to my right hon. Friend that it is within the power of Parliament to issue regulations specially to the sheriff. Under what Statute would those regulations be issued? As I understand, we have no power to issue regulations.

Mr. Simon: I must have expressed myself badly, or the hon. and learned Gentleman misheard me. I did not say that it could be done by regulations. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to be referring to the possibility of a fresh Statute dealing with the position of sheriffs by way of amendment of the Sheriffs Act.
As I have said, the enactment on procedure laid down in the Bill will ensure that the present practice of posting a notice outside the prison will cease, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission. It will he replaced by procedure which will ensure that the date of the execution will be published more than a week before the date fixed. In other words, this Amendment is unnecessary.
In any case, the Government would be unable to accept it for the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that it lays a duty on the Secretary of State, without any correlated obligation on the sheriff to inform the Secretary of

State of the date fixed in time for the Secretary of State to discharge the obligation laid on him by the Amendment.

Mr. Younger: It would be easy to rectify that technical defect on Report, if there is to be anything other than a formal Report stage.

Mr. Ede: Surely the Under-Secretary himself is capable of drafting an Amendment, which, I have no doubt, would be accepted as a manuscript Amendment, and which would remove this difficulty.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Simon: I have, at least, learned to distrust my own powers of drafting. Such a suggestion would not commend itself to the Government.
In its present form the Amendment is objectionable for the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman. But in any case, I hope that my explanation of the procedure shows that it is quite unnecessary, and that a notice will be published in the way and in the time desired by those who support the Amendment.
Publication in the London Gazette is quite unnecessary. The Government have again followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission. At present, it is the practice to publish a notice of the date of execution in the newspapers. That is preferable to publication in the London Gazette, which is not a widely read journal. It comes out less frequently—

Mr. S. Silverman: I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have regarded that as a good reason for accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Simon: The hon. Gentleman can say that only because he entirely misunderstands the motive of those bringing forward the Bill. I hope that the fact that we put that forward as an argument will in some measure re-establish us in his eyes.
It is a serious consideration. The London Gazette comes out only twice a week, on Tuesdays and Fridays. If we want an early announcement to the public, for reasons suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham, West it seems to the Government preferable that an announcement should be made in the way suggested by the Royal Commission and enacted in the terms of this Bill. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept this Amendment.

Mr. Younger: If the London Gazette is such an ineffective organ, will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why it is specifically mentioned in the following subsection, on the recommendation of the Commission? I should have thought that much the same argument would apply on both issues. The London Gazette is recommended, and that recommendation has been implemented in respect of the actual execution.

Mr. Simon: In making that differentiation we are following the recommendation of the Royal Commission. There is a clear distinction between giving advance publicity at the earliest possible moment, when one wants to give it in a form in which it will be more widely read than in the London Gazette, and notification after execution, which is an official notification, and the same considerations about early publication do not obtain.

Mr. Royle: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not be surprised if hon. Members on this side of the Committee feel that everything he has said may be used as an argument for the Amendment. His main concern seems to be our concern that there should be adequate notice given. All we ask is that there shall be an adequate safeguard.
It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us that in every case the right amount of notice will be given and that, in his view, it will be longer than one week. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman absolutely sure that in every single case of this kind there will be more than a week's notice given?
I wish to raise another point which has not yet been mentioned. It relates to the relationship between the date of execution, the actual conviction and the Royal Prerogative. In recent years I remember two serious cases where the question of the Royal Prerogative was involved. I refer to the cases of Mrs. Cristofi and Ruth Ellis. I remember how at the last moment, almost certainly within the last 48 hours before execution, certain facts came to the knowledge of a group of hon. Members of this House. They were facts of great consequence.
In the case of Mrs. Cristofi evidence was placed before at least a group of hon. Members to show that there was some doubt, and some disagreement between specialists, whether that woman was sane

at the time of her trial. Because of that, and because of other considerations in the case of Ruth Ellis, a number of hon. Members, during those vital 48 hours, were meeting in this Palace, considering the matter, hearing the points of view of people concerned, with a view to our intervening with the Home Secretary of the day. I stress the time factor. It is most important. We who were concerned then were acting in desperation because of the time factor. We had only a few hours in which to make our approach to the Home Secretary. This is a very strong argument.
We should not be haphazard about this notice. It should be within our knowledge that the execution will take place, and we should know at least seven days before. From what the hon. and learned Gentleman told us there might be any manner of slip-up. I suggest that, in view of what he has said, the only possible reason the Government can think of for resisting the Amendment is the one mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and that is the question of the avoidance of other than a formal Report stage. The Home Secretary shakes his head. I accept his assurance that the Government are not anxious to avoid other than a formal Report stage, but we have a right to ask them to think again and to agree to put the safeguard in the Bill.
I am not very much concerned about the second two Amendments, but I am most concerned about this question of the seven days. I beg the Minister to give us the safeguard for which we are asking, so that there may be no doubt in our minds.

Mr. Willey: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) in impressing upon the Government their duty to look again at this Clause. The Joint Under-Secretary will appreciate that there is a general feeling that the Clause is not entirely satisfactory. I think that he showed that in his reply to the debate. He spoke with sweet reason, but everything he said supported the plea that the Clause should be reconsidered.
As I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, he told us, first, that it was impossible to amend without paying regard to the duties of sheriffs. If that be so, the Government had better consider the position before Report stage.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Royal Commission, in paragraph 756, upon which we base our view, did not recommend any change in this matter. The Commission referred to the past history of this. It referred to what it described as the de facto and de jure responsibility in the separation between the sheriff and the Home Secretary or the Prison Commissioners. It did not recommend any change. In the comparative detail with which we are dealing in the Amendment, I do not think that it is possible to make any change, either. I am certainly interested to listen to the debate, but so far no argument has made me think that the Royal Commission is wrong or that we should legislate to make any change.

Mr. Willey: If the Under-Secretary were to say to the Committee, "This is a matter upon which we have had the Report of a Royal Commission and we think that the best course is to accept wholly what the Commission recommends because it had the opportunity to consider this," the Government would be in a different position, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has not done that. The Government are picking and choosing. In our discussion of the previous Clause I pointed out a matter on which the Commission made a recommendation. The Government have not accepted that. They are merely using the Report of the Commission as a basis for their proposals. What the Under-Secretary said is no answer. In any event, I do not want to pursue that argument further. I leave it to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
The second argument of the Under-Secretary, which I thought was the more attractive one, was, "You can disregard all that I have said about the sheriff; this Amendment is unnecessary because this is the present practice." If that is the present practice I should have thought that here we had an opportunity to put it into statutory form and that the person who would most welcome that would be the Secretary of State himself.
The present practice is placing upon the Home Secretary a heavy burden which is most difficult to discharge. Because of its nature the method of its discharge has to be reduced as far as it

humanly can be to rules of thumb. That is what the Under-Secretary really said about the provisions of the Clause. I agree that there must be understood conventions about the publication that is made; but, as we are considering the matter now in the form of a Bill, I should have thought that there was everything to be said for putting these conventions into statutory form to make the position of the Home Secretary abundantly clear, so that every one would know the periods within which, and the places where, publication had to be made.
I appreciate the argument about the ritual of the notices of execution. I can see arguments against that, if on no other ground than that it is probably upsetting to the officers in the prison and to the prisoners there as well. I think that that is a good enough ground for saying that that form of notice may well be abandoned, as the Commission recommended. Obviously, the first thing is that the Home Secretary must give notice of the date and place of execution. That is unavoidable. If we wish to avoid morbidity we had better avoid morbid speculation. Let us have the notice defined; let us know what sort of notice it will be.
Why should not we accept the Amendment to provide for the period for which the notice shall run, especially in view of what the Under-Secretary said about the sheriff, because in practice this notice is always given? Why not let us say so now? Why not let the Home Secretary be in the position to say that Parliament has provided that that notice shall be given, so that he will be under a statutory obligation to give it? Everyone will know that he will give it, and we shall avoid this morbid speculation.
The London Gazette may be inappropriate for the publication of the notice. In the interests of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, I do not want to discourage the sales of that publication, but if it is inappropriate let us have an alternative suggestion. Let us get the matter formalised; let everyone know where the notice will appear and the form that it will take. At present there is a convention that the notice should be published by the Home Secretary in a certain way and, consequent upon that, notices appear in the Press. That may be satisfactory to the Press, but I doubt


whether it is satisfactory to all other interested persons.
I should have thought that if we provided in the Bill that the notice should be published in the London Gazette that would be sufficient and satisfactory, but if, because the London Gazette is published only on Tuesdays and Fridays, that would cause difficulties for the Home Secretary, let us have some other suggestion, but let us have the position formalised. We must recognise that if the Bill becomes law it will place upon the Home Secretary a duty which is most difficult to discharge. The more we define the manner of its discharge, the better it will be for the Home Secretary.
For these reasons I hope that the Government will give further thought to this matter, and that on Report they will considerably amend the Clause, if they cannot accept the Amendments now being proposed. They ought not to accept the present position. It is now clear that the Committee feels that although this is a procedural matter the procedure ought to be provided for in the Bill.
Before we leave the Amendments I hope that the Government will give us an explicit assurance on those lines.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I would not trouble the Committee a second time except that I think the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) deserve some comment.
Many years ago, a friend of mine who had just been appointed to the magisterial bench, being a moderate and diffident man, sought advice from a more experienced colleague. That advice was, "One thing remember: never give reasons, because your decision may be right and your reasons wrong. It is much better to make up your mind according to your judgment and good conscience, and then deliver your judgment. Do not argue about it."
The hon. and learned Gentleman is, I will not say too naive or inexperienced a Member, but too nice a person to avail himself of that advice at present. But as he rises in Ministerial experience and becomes morally hardened, as I am afraid all Ministers do—I can say it with confidence never having been a Minister—he will acquire the protective covering

with which Ministers are bound to clothe themselves if they are to survive at all. He may then observe the advice which was given by the senior magistrate to his junior.
The Home Secretary and Leader of the House seems to have forgotten that advice for the moment, because when he gave reasons they were less intelligible than those of the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West. He said, "It is quite simple. It has nothing to do with the Report stage and indeed nothing much to do with the arguments. The Government cannot accept the Amendments because the Royal Commission did not recommend them and because the Royal Commission recommended us to do exactly what we are doing. That is a very good reason for not doing anything else."
Surely the Home Secretary, from his own point of view, is succeeding in proving too much. If he regards what he said as a conclusive argument in every case he should withdraw the Bill at once. If it is not a conclusive argument in every case, it cannot be a conclusive argument in any case, and it follows that it cannot be a conclusive argument in this case. We are driven back to the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which I will now proceed to examine.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said, firstly, that we could not accept the first Amendment dealing with the seven days' notice because there was no duty upon the sheriff who fixes the date to give the Home Secretary any notice at all, or indeed to fix a date. Therefore, we could not accept the Amendment because it would lay upon the Home Secretary a statutory duty which he has no certain means of ever being able to fulfil.
It has already been pointed out that that difficulty could very easily be overcome. All we would have to do, since this is a Bill to amend the administration as well as the principles of the law relating to murder and the death penalty, is either to take the duty from the sheriff altogether and place the duty of fixing the date of the execution upon the Home Secretary—which would remove the difficulty completely—or to introduce into the Bill, as the hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly recognises, an obligation on the sheriff to fix the date and to


give notice thereof to the Home Secretary in sufficient time to enable the right hon. Gentleman to discharge any statutory obligation laid upon him.
It has been pointed out that the latter course might involve the Government in some difficulty at this late stage, there being at the moment no expectation of a Report stage, but I suggest to the hon. and learned Government in all seriousness that there is not the slightest reason why we should amend the law at all. Is he really suggesting that the Home Secretary could not write to the sheriff of a county in appropriate circumstances, and say, "Dear Sir, John Smith is awaiting execution in a prison within your jurisdiction, sentence of death having been passed upon him. Your duty will be, whether by statute or otherwise, to fix a date for the execution, and I as Home Secretary have a duty to give notice thereof seven days before the execution takes place. Kindly let me know what date you have fixed."? The Home Secretary would get an answer. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the sheriff would refuse to tell the Home Secretary? I have never heard of a sheriff who refused to fix the date of an execution, and I am sure that a sheriff would not keep the date secret. There is no difficulty at all.
In other words, if the absence of a statutory obligation upon the sheriff prevents the Government from accepting these Amendments it is simple to amend the law so as to bring about such a statutory obligation. If, on the other hand, the absence of a statutory obligation is not a bar and the Home Secretary can fulfil the public duty involved without amendment of the statute, there is clearly no reason on that score why the Amendments should not be accepted.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman were arguing that it is undesirable to give so long a period of notice as seven days one could listen to that kind of argument, but he was very far from arguing any such thing. He said, "We shall always do it and we always have done it. True, we have to balance one thing with another in estimating the length of time of notice, but even when we have balanced it all and reached our conclusion we regard seven days as a proper period". He agrees that there is no

difference between those who oppose the Bill and those who support it on the merits of this particular proposal. We are all in favour of giving notice, and seven days' notice.
The hon. and learned Gentleman thought, or at any rate said, that there were difficulties preventing him from accepting a statutory obligation to give seven days' notice, but if they have not been disposed of we have at least shown him ways of overcoming them which are not difficult, which would not take time, which are not controversial and which we would readily accept. There does not seem to be much left of that part of the argument.
We come to the other parts of the argument, which obviously belong together. In order to refuse to accept these Amendments the hon. and learned Gentleman was surely under an obligation to show some rational ground for distinguishing between the use of the London Gazette under subsection (3) and the failure to use it under subsection (2). He did not attempt to defend such discrimination, but said that under subsection (2) there might be a little delay because the London Gazette came out only on Tuesdays and Fridays. What an argument to advance. Would it matter very much if the execution were delayed twenty-four hours so as to permit of an adequate publication in the London Gazette? It is the greatest nonsense in the world. I am a little surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have offered that as a reason.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said that one may be a suitable organ for publication and the other not suitable. I could not follow the argument, but then he overlooked the fact that the Amendment does not suggest that publication should be exclusively in the London Gazette. No one is suggesting that the usual information which the Home Office would presumably give to the Press generally on such a matter would be withheld merely because there was a statutory obligation to publish it also in the London Gazette.
When we examine the reasons in this way we are left convinced, however reluctantly, that the Government have some ulterior purpose in resisting the Amendment. When I say an "ulterior purpose"


I do not necessarily mean a sinister one, I mean some purpose not related to the arguments advanced on either side as to the merits of the proposal. The ulterior purpose has been stated by my right hon. Friend. It has been denied, and it is always very difficult to reject a statement made formally and officially that the Government are not seeking in any way to avoid a Report stage, but we are left completely and absolutely puzzled.
One could understand it if that were their reason. One can understand it not at all if that is not their reason. The only rational explanation of their refusing to accept Amendments for which an overwhelming case has been made and to which no really comprehensible answer has been offered is the question of time and the great hurry to get this through quickly. The more we proceed with the examination of merits in this matter the more threadbare does the case of the Government become. It seems to be, "We really cannot stand further detailed analysis of this Bill Clause by Clause and line by line. The Third Reading, unfortunately, we have to put up with and there will be a general debate on principle again there, but the rules of order are tight and on the Third Reading one may talk of matters of principle, but only those already in the Bill and not about things which are not in the Bill, so that there will not again be the detailed close scrutiny which there ought to be of every proposal in the Bill."
One can very well understand, if the Government feel that the old lack of rationality in the Bill has been so embarrassingly demonstrated throughout the Committee stage, that they dare not face another detailed examination on Report stage. If that were the reason I could understand it, although I would reject it, but, if that is not their reason, there are no reasons at all.

Mr. Hale: I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) with deep respect. He has acquired a venerability in the last few months since he joined the tribe of Esau. But I am surprised he has acquired a venerability such as could be ascribed to Lord Chancellor Campbell, who died about 1860 and Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, who presided in the 1760's. It reminds one of the recent gossip column

which declared the visitor to Rome had "made the acquaintance" of Savonarola.

Mr. S. Silverman: There was no monopoly.

Mr. Hale: It is true that Lord Chief Justice Mansfield had no monopoly, but he had a priority.
I am most anxious to be meticulously courteous to the Joint Under-Secretary. I welcome him in his new office and express hopes of future co-operation in many fields of Home Office activity. I am most anxious to put any criticism in the most temperate way. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke charmingly, courteously, informatively and with some irrelevance. He made two points. He put forward what in the end, after a great deal of preliminary opening remarks, were two arguments against the Amendment. I do not want to misrepresent them, but I hope that I am in the recollection of the Committee and put them with complete fairness. One was that the Amendment is quite unnecessary because this will happen anyhow, and the other that it was quite impracticable because the Government may not be able to do it.
5.15 p.m.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we need not have this in the Bill because it is a regular Home Office practice and that it cannot be put in the Act because it is not known whether the sheriff will trouble to tell the Government and if he does not do so the Government cannot do it. That leaves us in a situation of some difficulty. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) raised an extremely important issue, one which perhaps we overlooked while he was cementing the bonds of Anglo-American friendship, but which might well have appeared on the Order Paper. It is important. Very few of us know much about the duties of the high sheriff in this matter. I suspect that very few of us knew (that the high sheriff was under no statutorily imposed duty, but that he was, in a sense, a free agent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, with every word of whose speech I agreed, at one stage rather accepted the argument of the Joint Under-Secretary that, of course, the high sheriff would always do it. He said that the Home Office had only to write to the high sheriff and he would reply, but in the most famous of all Irish murder


cases, the case of the Colleen Bawn—who in modern terminology would be referred to as the "blonde beauty"—when the first execution took place it was the duty of the high sheriff to arrange to hang his own favourite nephew, whom he had designated as his heir. He had taken on a duty and never thought that his nephew would be convicted. He made arrangements reasonably enough that the nephew should be allowed to proceed in his own carriage to the place of execution, but there was a moment when the two horses refused to go over the bridge over the Shannon. The crowd saw in that the finger of Providence, much as they saw it pointing into a stable at Torquay one hundred years later, and with as little reason. There was not the least reason to doubt the man's guilt.
If the sheriff does not fix the date at all, or fixes a date in the next century, that seems to leave the matter a little haphazard. We are told this is a matter entirely for the high sheriff. I remember that on the day of the execution of the murderer of the Colleen Bawn—I am not now speaking of personal memory but of historic recollection—Mr. William Henry Curron, son of John Philpot Curron, was due to dine with the high sheriff. He was two hundred miles from the home of the high sheriff and in those days appointments were kept. He recorded in his reminiscences that he realised that it would be very tactless that evening to touch on the subject of the execution of the nephew of the sheriff but, such is the fallibility of human nature, the more he realised it should not be mentioned, the more he felt the impish urge to say something. As the soup was brought in he made a rather casual comment on the demise of the heir of the sheriff. That gentleman raised his serviette to his neck, pinned it in his collar, took a huge spoonful of soup and said, "Yes, it has been altogether a very unfortunate business." I have always felt that, on the whole, that was a perfect comment on the controversy. It said everything which could be said. There was no notice posted on the gate and no extra advertisement; it was dealt with, and it was all over.
I have not the perennial youth of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and I find that the

years tread on me like the "great black oxen" of Yeats. I am getting more and more out of practice. In my day the high sheriff appointed an under-sheriff and then forgot all about executions. The high sheriff was the man who entertained the judges to dinner—or, rather, presided at the dinner at which the judges entertained themselves at our expense. He appointed an under-sheriff, who was normally a practising solicitor and, certainly in the Midlands, was usually the partner of the clerk of the peace. They divided up the patronage between them, rather like the partnership between the doctor and the undertaker. In the end it turned out all right for everyone.
I did not know that the under-sheriff was not under an obligation to inform the Home Office. Sometimes one perhaps tends to become a little facetious about matters of deep gravity; and if that has been so in this case, I apologise. In performing his duty, the Home Secretary is undertaking one of the gravest responsibilities which our laws confer upon anyone. It is one of the most difficult responsibilities and one in respect of which I say from my heart that although there have been moments of criticism in the House, we are most deeply reluctant to criticise; and when we have criticized, we have done so only when we have been impelled by a paramount sense of duty.
Is it good enough to say that we shall almost certainly get a notification from the sheriff? Let us look at the Parliamentary Secretary's arithmetic. He says that a minimum of fourteen days must elapse. We are dealing, let us say, with the execution of a man in the Midlands or Lancashire. His case has gone to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and in respect of it, if I understand the position, it would be impossible for the Home Office to have any consultation with the judge at the trial before the hearing by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Such consultation, I imagine, the Court of Criminal Appeal would properly resent and reprobate.
In respect of this case the Home Secretary becomes seized of the matter only after the appeal has been dismissed and the man has been sent back from London to the gaol where he is incarcerated—after the notification has gone to the high sheriff and after the high sheriff or the under-sheriff have notified the Home Office. It


is at that stage, as we understand it, that the Home Secretary begins his consideration of the matter and that all the responsibility for making this grave and difficult decision rests on the Home Office. It is not long. It has been said that it is sometimes two days, sometimes three days, sometimes four days before notification; and that means that seven or eight days is the total period which the Home Secretary may have in which to consider the matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend may bear in mind that in the lamentable case of young Derek Bentley the Home Secretary did not announce the totally unexpected refusal of the reprieve until less than forty-eight hours before the time fixed for the execution.

Mr. Hale: I agree with my hon. Friend. My recollection is that it was considerably less than forty-eight hours.
This is a point of great importance. Indeed, it might reasonably be said that in these circumstances he could hardly announce it earlier. There are some cases of mercy murder, where the decision can at least be confidently anticipated, but, of course, I do not suggest that in any case the Home Secretary can treat the matter lightly and need not have prolonged consultation about the circumstances of the case.
Let us consider the case of Mrs. Cristofi. She was a foreigner. Part of her life had been spent in foreign territory—indeed, all the formative years had been spent in a foreign territory. If I remember correctly, she could hardly speak a word of English and certainly had to be interpreted in the courts, with so much possibility of misunderstanding lying in that alone, however competent the interpreter, and with so much limitation on the self-expression of the accused. For such a case the Home Secretary would have five, six or seven days.
That is why it is important that this Amendment should be passed. If there be no statutory sanction for the sheriff to appoint a day, there is therefore no statutory sanction for that day. The practice of three Sundays passing between the dismissal of the appeal, or the conviction if that terminates the proceedings, and the date appointed for the execution is, as we understand the explanation now, purely a convention and purely the practice of the years.
Is it necessary to follow it? I want to make it clear at once that I should not like to see very long periods elapse between the passing of sentence and execution. Of course, I do not want to see executions at all, but once we concede that an Act is being passed which may permit them to take place, then I would certainly agree that no more than a reasonable period should elapse between conviction and execution. One does not want to see prolonged legal proceedings holding up the execution, as one sees them in America; although it must be remembered that in the course of many of those long proceedings complete innocence has been established. I agree with almost everything my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said on a previous Amendment when he referred to the French case. One wants to see a most thorough investigation but one does not want to see it indefinitely and rather brutally prolonged.
Nevertheless—and I do not want to pursue this argument in detail—one week for the right hon. Gentleman to consider these matters is a very short period, for it may be a week in which the right hon. Gentleman is engaged in legislation in the House. We allow one week for the right hon. Gentleman who is charged with a manifold variety of duties and now, of course, I think for the first time in my recollection, charged with the duty of being Leader of the House.

Mr. Ede: Not for the first time.

Mr. Hale: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon; my right hon. Friend was Leader of the House while he was at the Home Office—and a very distinguished Leader of the House. I apologise for that error of recollection, but the present Home Secretary is Leader of the House for the first time for some years; and he is also Lord Privy Seal and is charged with responsibility for Welsh Affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As we understand it, he is also, if not in title at least in fact, deputy Prime Minister. These are very responsible duties, which become more responsible when one looks at the Front Bench opposite and realises how much general responsibility may fall upon him. We shall probably have him answering Questions on colonial affairs on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland before long.
In any event, many of us think that this period is a very short period. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields made a point which would never have occurred to my innocent mind—that there might have been in the minds of Her Majesty's Ministers a desperate plot to avoid a Report stage on this important Bill by refusing to accept a single comma or a single colon by way of Amendment to its provisions. I am bound to say that, listening with surprise, as I did, to my right hon. Friend, and observing the air of injured guilt which at once appeared on the faces of Her Majesty's present advisers, I thought there was a certain consciousness of guilt. It appeared to me that the idea did not come as a shock or surprise to them. I thought, at least, that if such an idea had been in the minds of Her Majesty's advisers when the Bill was framed we would have been told so, but those advisers have gone, and we have two new advisers whom we thought were specially introduced for the courage and fortitude with which they would be able to face the Report stage of this Bill when that situation developed.
5.30 p.m.
In those circumstances, there were, if I might use a football metaphor, the old international back with his chest covered with medals, and the newcomer making his debut in the forward line. In those circumstances one would have thought that the Government would have wanted to stage a few exhibition matches to show

up the two new and welcome recruits, and would have wanted them to show their ability in some manner, instead of suppressing that possibility. To have accepted that situation we would willingly have come here again and raised points.

One thing is clear. In the course of this discussion many of us have ascertained things of importance, and many questions of importance have emerged about which we ought to have been fully informed. In the course of the discussion on all the Clauses of the Bill, even if no comma has been removed, many matters of great importance have been raised, and it would be very much to be regretted if it had to be said at the end of the Committee stage tomorrow that, in the whole course of these debates and with all these important suggestions, the Government had not found it possible to adopt one single word of all the Amendments, of all the new Clauses and of all the recommendations made—many of them based on the Report of the Royal Commission itself. Far be it from me to impute motives of any kind, but if that were really the position tomorrow then I think that certain members of the public would impute the motive that Amendments, beneficial Amendments, had been refused merely in deference to what the right hon. Gentleman has referred to as pressure on Government time.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 153, Noes 200.

Division No. 45.]
AYES
[5.35 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Cove, W. G.
Hamilton, W. W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Cronin, J. D.
Hastings, S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hayman, F. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Daines, P.
Healey, Denis


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hobson, C. R.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Holman, P.


Benson, G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holmes, Horace


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Holt, A. F.


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, H. J.
Houghton, Douglas


Blenkinsop, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Blyton, W. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boardman, H.
Dye, S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, A. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. pncs, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Callaghan, L. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Champion, A. J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Chapman, W. D.
Greenwood, Anthony
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Kenyon, C.


Coldrick, W.
Grimond, J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hale, Leslie
King, Dr. H. M.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hall, Rt. Hn. Clenvil (Colne Valley)
Lawson, G. M.




Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Parker, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lewis, Arthur
Paton, John
Swingler, S. T.


Lindgren, G. S.
Pearson, A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lipton, Marcus
Popplewell, E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


MacColl, J. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McInnes, J.
Probert, A. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Proctor, W. T.
Viant, S. P.


McLeavy, Frank
Randall, H. E.
Wade, D. W.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rankin, John
Warbey, W. N.


Mason, Roy
Redhead, E. C.
Weitzman, D.


Mellish, R. J.
Reeves, J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Masser, Sir F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
West, D. G.


Mitchison, G. R.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Moyle, A.
Ross, William
Wigg, George


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Royle, C.
Willey, Frederick


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Oliver, G. H.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Oram, A. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Oswald, T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Owen, W. J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Woof, R. E.


Paget, R. T.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Sparks, J. A.



Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stones, W. (Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pargiter, G. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.


Altken, W. T.
Fort, R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry


Amory, Bt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Armstrong, C. W.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Ashton, H.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Godber, J. B.
Maddan, Martin


Atkins, H. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Barber, Anthony
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Barter, John
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Green, A.
Mathew, R.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Gresham Cooke, R,
Maude, Angus


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mawby, R. L.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Bavins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gurden, Harold
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Black, C. W.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Body, R. F.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Neave, Airey


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Boyd, T. C.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Oakshott, H. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Page, R. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peyton, J. W. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bryan, P.
Hope, Lord John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hornby, R. P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pott, H. P.


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, John (Test)
Powell, J. Enoch


Channon, Sir Henry
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hurd, A. R.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Ramsden, J. E.


Cole, Norman
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Peter


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, M.


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, D. L. M.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rippon, A. G. F.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Robertson, Sir David


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Keegan, D.
Robinson, Sir Ronald (Blackpool, S.)


Cunningham, Knox
Kerr, H. W.
Robson-Brown, W.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Dance, J. C. G.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Deedes, W. F.
Leather, E. H. C.
Russell, R. S.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leavey, J. A.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leburn, W. G.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Duthie, W. S.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)


Errington, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert
Soames, Capt. C.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fell, A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Speir, R. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)




Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Thorneycroft Rt. Hon. P.
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Storey, S.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Summers, Sir Spencer
Vickers, Miss J. H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Temple, J. M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Mr. Hughes-Young.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: On a point of order. With respect, Sir Gordon, the Amendment on page 5, line 35, after "publish," to insert
in the London Gazette and
relates to a substantially different point from the point on which we have just divided. I appreciate that we discussed both Amendments together, but it was understood that we should have a Division on each.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. May I point out that although the second Amendment to which my hon. Friend has just referred and the third Amendment, in page 5, line 35, after "such." to insert "other," are closely connected, in that one is consequential upon the other and the proposed alteration could not be effected without both Amendments, the point raised by those two Amendments is totally distinct from the Amendment on which we have just voted.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Chairman has not selected those Amendments for a Division.

Mr. Greenwood: With respect, Sir Gordon, if you would be so kind as to look at the Notice Paper you will observe that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, there is a substantial difference between the two Amendments. The first Amendment on which we have just divided relates to the period of time which must elapse, and the second relates to the place of publication, to which we attach great importance.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the position is that the two subsequent Amendments are not selected. They were not moved.

Mr. Silverman: With respect, this is the second time in the course of this Committee stage that a similar point has arisen. It is rather difficult and embarrassing for those of us who have to determine what course we are going to pursue if we do not understand, until it is too late to make any suggestion, what is going to be put and what is not going to be put. I am afraid that in my innocence, or ignorance, I have assumed that when the Chairman has said, "We will discuss these Amendments together," he selects those Amendments. How otherwise can they be discussed together?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is wrong in assuming that. If the Chairman selects one Amendment and says that others may be discussed with it, he is not selecting the others for a Division, unless he says so.

Mr. Silverman: It becomes difficult to distinguish between Amendments which are not selected and Amendments which are not selected except in the sense that they may be discussed in connection with some other Amendment which is selected. The distinction is meaningless, and we do not know how to dispose economically of the time of the Committee so as not to waste time upon Amendments which are not selected.

The Deputy-Chairman: This practice has gone on for a good many years, and I should have thought that it was familiar to all Members.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale: May I intervene, as I moved the first Amendment, about which I did not know very much and about which I know still less now that I have heard the Government explanation? My recollection is that the Chairman rose in his place and said. "Would it be convenient to take the next two Amendments with this Amendment?" I said, "Certainly, we will take all three together." That is the only evidence that I have to offer on the point. That is my best recollection of the matter, which may prove erroneous.
It seems to me that if one is asked from the Chair to consider a later Amendment with the Amendment which one is moving, that would be the moment at which one would say "but not to divide upon it." We would appear to have agreed to a joint discussion in which our argument on the second Amendment cannot be divided upon. I should have thought that my hon. Friends would have had the duty of considering whether we would waste the time of the Committee with a long discussion on an argument which we could not support by a vote. Without wishing to make any other comment at all, that is my own recollection of what transpired.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sure the hon. Member will remember that the first Amendment was selected and a wide debate was permitted in order to cover the two other Amendments. There was no question of having a Division on the second and third Amendments.

Mr. Silverman: We have been discussing these three Amendments together for the better part of two hours—two hours less the time of the Division. Two-thirds of that time has been devoted to the question raised by the second and third Amendments, as to whether the publication provided for under subsection (3), namely, in the London Gazette,

shall also apply. The amount of time being limited, there would have been no point in devoting two-thirds of two hours to discussing that point if the Chair had allowed it to be understood that the Committee was to be precluded from taking a decision upon it. We would have been able to reach a decision on the first Amendment very much earlier.

The points which are being pressed upon your attention, Sir Gordon, are for the convenience of the whole Committee and not merely in order to advance a particular argument or because we feel that we are deprived of a Division or anything of that kind. We have to use the time as economically as we can, and there seems to be little point in spending rather more than an hour upon discussing what some of us think is a substantial point on the basis that, without our knowledge, at the end of the discussion the Committee is not to be given an opportunity to decide between the case raised for the Amendment and the case made against it. I do not want to use too harsh a word, but it really does make our discussions a little less useful than one would have hoped they might be.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 193, Noes 151.

Division No. 46.]
AYES
[5.48 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cooper, A. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Aitken, W. T.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Armstrong, C. W.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gurden, Harold


Ashton, H.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Atkins, H. E.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Barber, Anthony
Cunningham, Knox
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Barter, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Baxter, sir Beverley
Dance, J. C. G.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Deedes, W. F.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Duthie, W. S.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hope, Lord John


Black, C. W.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hornby, R. P.


Body, R. F.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Boyd, T. C.
Fell, A.
Howard, John (Test)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fisher, Nigel
Hurd, A. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fort, R.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bryan, P.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Burden, F. F. A.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Godber, J. B.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Cary, Sir Robert
Gower, H. R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Channon, Sir Henry
Graham, Sir Fergus
Joseph, Sir Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Keegan, D.


Cole, Norman
Green, A.
Kerr, H. W.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lambert, Hon. G.




Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Leather, E. H. C.
Page, R. G.
Storey, S.


Leavey, J. A.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Leburn, W. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Temple, J. M.


Longden, Gilbert
Pott, H. P.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Raikes, Sir Victor
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


McAdden, S. J.
Ramsden, J. E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rawlinson, Peter
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Redmayne, M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Renton, D. L. M.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maddan, Martin
Rippon, A. G. F.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Robertson, Sir David
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Marlowe, A A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Mathew, R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maude, Angus
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Mawby, R. L.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Shepherd, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)



Nairn, D. L. S.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Neave, Airey
Speir, R. M.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Mr. Hughes-Young.


Oakshott, H. D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Gibson, C. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, Anthony
Oliver, G. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oram, A. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grimond, J.
Oswald, T.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Hale, Leslie
Owen, W. J.


Benson, G.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Clenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Blackburn, F.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hastings, S.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Boardman, H.
Healey, Denis
Parker, J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Paton, John


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Holman, P.
Pearson, A.


Bowles, F. G.
Holmes, Horace
Popplewell, E.


Boyd, T. C.
Holt, A. F.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brockway, A. F.
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, A. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, H. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.


Champion, A. J.
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chapman, W. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Coldrick, W.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Royle, C.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cronin, J. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Daines, P.
Kenyon, C.
Sparks, J. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
King, Dr. H. M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, G. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Swingler, S. T.


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Sylvester, G. O.


Dodds, N. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McInnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dye, S.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Wade, D. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, W, N.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Messer, Sir F.
Weitzman, D.


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fienburgh, W.
Monslow, W.
West, D. G.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moyle, A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)







Willey, Frederick
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)



Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Woof, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.


Williams, W.T. (Barons Court)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Clause 12.—(AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE EXECUTIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ede: This Clause affects some very important matters of administration and permits an alteration in practice without making that alteration, so far as I read the Clause, mandatory. It arises out of the matter dealt with in paragraphs 774 to 776 of the Report of the Royal Commission, and deals with a subject which has been a source of great administrative difficulty for a good many years.
At the moment, the practice is that where two persons are to be executed on the same day in the same prison the executions take place simultaneously. I was once confronted with the possibility that there might be a treble execution; so far as I could ascertain, there was no precedent to give guidance as to what should happen in any modern times which could be regarded as relevant. The present practice is that two executions fixed for the same day in the same prison take place simultaneously.
Perhaps it would be better if I read the paragraphs from the Report. They deal as succinctly as possible with the subject, and any attempt at paraphrase generally means that safeguarding phrases have to be introduced which, in the end, make the paraphrase longer than the paragraphs which one attempts to shorten. I will begin at paragraph 774:
When two prisoners are sentenced to death for the same murder, they are executed together on the same scaffold. For a double execution, the executioner is normally assisted by three assistant executioners; the pinioning of both prisoners is done by the executioner and the work of the assistants is confined to binding the legs of the prisoners when on the trap and leading the second prisoner to the scaffold. Double executions were strongly criticized by Mr. H. N. Gedge, acting Under-Sheriff for the County of London, who told us:
'There is one matter which I should like the Commission to consider, that is that, in my opinion, not more than one prisoner should be executed at the same time. I have attended at four double executions. The nervous tension of the prison officials and all concerned at a double execution is out of all proportion to that of a single execution. Should there be any difficulty with either or both of the prisoners, it would be far harder to restrain them than in the case of a single prisoner.

Further, from the point of view of the condemned men, a double execution is more likely to bring about the collapse, on the scaffold, of one or both of the prisoners. However well the arrangements are made, such an execution must, of necessity, take slightly longer than a single execution.'
Mr. Gedge recommended that the two executions should take place on the same day with an hour's interval between them, and said that this had been done in one case where trouble might have occurred between the two prisoners. Another under-sheriff, however, after recently attending a double execution, told the Home Office that delay was practically negligible and he had no hesitation in favouring this practice (unless there were reason to suppose that one of the men might cause trouble), bearing in mind particularly the effect on the prison of prolonging the execution and the feeling of the prisoner who had to wait. Mr. Pierrepoint said that he regarded a double execution as not essentially different from the single one and that it took only a few seconds longer, so that there would scarcely be time for the first prisoner to collapse.
6.0 p.m.
The Commission then consulted the Home Office. I will not read all the paragraph dealing with that, but I will quote from the Home Office evidence to the Commission given in paragraph 775 as follows:
'One possible means of reducing both the risk of untoward incident and the extra time needed for a double execution might be to employ two executioners with one assistant so that each man could be pinioned at the same time. We are disposed to think that this may be the best available solution of the problem …'
The Home Office also suggested that another way of solving the problem would be to move one of the prisoners to another prison for execution. But this could not usually be done under the existing law outside the Central Criminal Court District, it would mean legislation.
The promoters of the Bill have apparently adopted the view that legislation is desirable. They do not make any course mandatory in future, as I read the Clause. I do not think that the word "may" in the second line of the Clause could be construed in this Clause as being one of the occasions when the word "may" means "shall". As I read it, a discretion is now left with the Secretary of State whereby there may either be a double execution or one of the prisoners may be removed to another prison, where the execution will take place.
The Clause refers to "the sheriff charged with the execution." That, I think, means the sheriff of the county in which the crime was committed. I should like to be certain of that, because it is a very important matter in these days when there is not a prison in the territory of each of the administrative counties of the country. I think that it means the sheriff of the county in whose area the crime of murder, entailing the death penalty, was committed. The Clause reads:
… the sheriff charged with the execution shall for that purpose have the same jurisdiction in that prison and over the officers of it, and be subject to the same responsibilities and duties in it, as though the prison were that in which the sentence would have been executed but for the direction.
That involves us in what is meant exactly in Clause 10 of the Bill, where there appears the form of sentence. I am informed that the present form of sentence includes a statement by the judge that the prisoner shall be taken back to the prison from which he has been brought to court. Now is that to be included in the form of sentence? Because the words do not say that these are the only words to be used. The Clause reads:
… the form of the sentence shall be to the effect only.….
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to tell me whether it is proposed to use that form of words, particularly in cases where two prisoners are being sentenced together, as, for example, in the Brown and Kennedy case, or whether that phrase will be dropped either in the case of a double finding of guilty or in every case?
Who is to act for the sheriff of the county responsible for the execution where two executions are taking place in different prisons on the same day? As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has said, usually the duty is discharged by the under-sheriff. In these days most sheriffs avoid attending the execution, although they are legally responsible for it. Of course, if they like to discharge the duty in person, as I knew one high sheriff who most ghoulishly did, they have the right to do so. However, in small counties it is unlikely that there will be more than one under-sheriff. For instance, Mr. Gedge,

who gave evidence before the Royal Commission, was described as the "acting Under-Sheriff for the County of London."
Will it be possible for the high sheriff, who does not wish to attend the execution himself, to have a special representative appointed to attend the second execution? If so, how will he be appointed? I want the hon. and learned Gentleman to understand that I am not opposing this Clause. I approve of it; I only wish it had been made mandatory instead of being merely permissive, but I should like to know from him what will be the policy of the Home Secretary.
I regret that on many occasions when one hears this matter being discussed the two words "Home Office" are used. A few evenings ago I interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West for using the words "Home Office" when the proper words were "Home Secretary". I am sure that the present holder of that office will not object to my insistence that some of these things, when they are matters of policy—as the future use of this Clause will be—come within the ambit of the Home Secretary. Whilst the right hon. Gentleman may get advice from the very learned and, if I may say so, very merciful officers in the Home Office, the responsibility is his, and policy in its ultimate formulation is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman; and I am certain that the higher officers of the Home Office would be the first always to insist that this is so.
This Clause raises some important matters. On the ground of humanity generally it is better that the double execution shall not take place in one prison, but in separate prisons, and that although the prisoners are executed at the same time they should not be executed at the same place. Of course it raises the question as to who is to be the executioner in the case in which the usual executioner does not carry out the operation.
Inasmuch as there is no Amendment involved here I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman, even with the simplicity of anyone enjoying his patronymic, may be able to deal with this case without feeling that this is an effort to take a rise out of the Government. It is a matter which I am sure, once it becomes generally known, will excite interest


among humanitarians who have been perturbed in the past on occasion by the problems presented by double executions.
In supporting the Clause I can only express the hope that in another place they may see fit to alter the word "may" in the second line to the word "shall". I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Bill comes back here with that Amendment made in another place, even those of us who are most opposed to another place interfering with Bills introduced in this House will find no ground for opposing it, and that there will be no ground to fear a prolonged debate.

Mr. Simon: I certainly would not regard the intervention by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on a matter of this sort as being designed to take a rise out of the Government. On the contrary, his interventions so far have brought out the great value of his experience in the high office which he held and I, who am a newcomer to the Department over which he presided, am very grateful for the way he has set out the problems which we have to face in consideration of this Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman really asked me three questions. First, in what respect the new form of sentence applies to double capital murders. Secondly, the position of the sheriff—first. which sheriff is in question and, secondly, as to the appointment of deputies. Thirdly, he raised the question as to the discretionary element in the Clause as drawn and how my right hon. Friend, who as the right hon. Gentleman justly says, is personally responsible, intends to implement the powers which this Clause gives him if the Bill passes into law.
With regard to the new form of sentence, the right hon. Gentleman's question arises because, under the old form of sentence, as he pointed out.
The sentence of the court upon you is, that you be taken from this place to a lawful prison and thence to a place of execution, and that you be hanged by the neck until you be dead; and that your body be afterwards buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall have been confined before your execution. And may the Lord have mercy on your soul.
The new form of sentence, which as the right hon. Gentleman says is only indicated, is to the effect only that he is to

suffer death in the manner authorised by law.
So it is quite clearly the intention of Clause 10 that there shall be no reference to the prison in which the accused man is confined at any time.
With regard to the sheriff, who is referred to in Clause 12, the matter arises in this way. Under the present law, as I understand it, the matter is governed by Section 13 of the Sheriffs Act, 1887, which lays down and gives the sheriff the duty of supervising the execution of judgment of death. It states that he:
?… may carry such judgment into execution in any prison which is the common gaol of his county or in which the convict was confined for the purpose of safe custody prior to his removal to the place where such court was held, …
Normally that would be the same prison. Normally, the accused man would be in the common gaol of the county, except where his trial had been removed to the Old Bailey.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman help me on this? There is no gaol in the County of Surrey. As I understand it, if a murder is committed in the County of Surrey, the High Sheriff of Surrey is responsible for seeing that the execution is carried out, no matter where the trial took place. Is that a correct interpretation of the law or not?

Mr. Simon: I believe that is correct, although the place where the sentence must be carried out is the prison which is the common gaol of the county or in which the convict was confined for the purpose of his safe custody. I think that the answer is contained in the opening words with which I did not trouble the Committee. They are:
Where judgment of death has been passed upon a convict at any court of assize or any sessions of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery held for any county or riding or division or other part of a county, the sheriff of such county shall be charged with the execution …
I think that is the reason for the practice to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me whether the sheriff must under the existing law or under the new law personally supervise an execution. As the right hon. Gentleman indicated, he need not do so. He has a statutory right to appoint a


deputy to carry out the execution under the Capital Punishment Amendment Act, 1868.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked why the word is "may". As he pointed out—and I am grateful to him for doing so, because it saves me from going into the background which animated the Royal Commission in making this recommendation—there has been grave disquiet in certain quarters about double executions and, particularly, the effect on those who are responsible for them in various ways. It is to obviate those disadvantages and to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission that this Clause is in the Bill. The word "may"—in this case, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right—does confer a discretion; it would not be here construed as being equivalent to "shall". But that is merely to preserve a certain amount of flexibility and it is in the normal practice of draftsmanship.
My right hon. Friend does intend in cases of double executions—except in extraordinary circumstances, which I confess I cannot envisage, but I think that he is right to make that exception—to exercise the discretion which is given to him in this Clause in order to ensure that double executions are carried out in the way that the right hon. Gentleman desires to see and which the Royal Commission recommended and which I commend to the Committee.

Mr. Willey: If there should be exceptional circumstances in which the double execution was carried out, would the hon. and learned Gentleman assure the Committee that the recommendations of the Royal Commission would then be followed? Cannot he anticipate some of the difficulties in the execution of two convicts being carried out separately, because it is quite clear that when this Bill becomes law there will be very few executions—a handful of executions a year—and there may be some difficulty in having two executioners and two assistants? His right hon. Friend may find that he can only rely upon a single executioner. Has the right hon. Gentleman envisaged the difficulties that may arise if he has a double execution when the executions are not carried out simultaneously?

Mr. Simon: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I can say that the administrative implications have been very carefully considered and my right hon. Friend has been advised that the provisions are practicable as well as desirable. With regard to the other question which the hon. Gentleman asked me, as to whether, in circumstances which. I have said, I cannot envisage at the moment, it would be desirable to have the execution at the same prison on the same day and whether the recommendations of the Royal Commission would be carried out. what the Royal Commission said was this:
We accept the view of the Department that, where two prisoners are to be executed on the same day in the same prison, it is on balance preferable for them to be executed together …
I have not had an opportunity to find out what the view of my right hon. Friend and his advisers would be if that occasion should arise, but I have no reason to think that the view of the Home Office, which gave evidence on that occasion, has in any way changed. I imagine that the existing practice would continue. What my right hon. Friend intends to do in all ordinary circumstances, in the painful event of a double execution, is to use the powers conferred on him by the Clause if it becomes law.

Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the clarity with which he has answered my question. There is, however, one point, which he has not cleared up. Is the high sheriff, in the event of a double execution taking place and his not wishing to attend in person, entitled to have the under-sheriff at one place and to appoint a deputy for the occasion to attend at the second place?

Mr. Simon: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I have a note of his question, but I had omitted to answer it. In the event of the two prisons being under the jurisdiction of the same sheriff, the sheriff has, under the 1868 Act, the right to appoint a deputy, and since according to the Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural, it seems to me that that would apply in the case cited and that there would be a right to appoint deputies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—(APPLICATION OF PARTS I AND III TO SCOTLAND.)

Mr. E. G. Willis: I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, after "Part I", to insert:
and sections five and six of Part II.

The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment, in page 6, line 24, at the end to add:
(4) Section seven of this Act shall extend to Scotland with the omission of the words "in any case not falling within section five or six of this Act.
has not been selected for a separate division, but may be discussed with this Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I congratulate the Scottish Office upon having produced such a galaxy of Ministers for this debate. I congratulate the Secretary of State upon being present. Frequently in the past we did not see the Secretary of State when Scottish questions were discussed, and when we saw him we often could not hear him. Perhaps this is an omen that some of our Amendments will be considered rather more sympathetically than they might have been.
The effect of our Amendments would be to delete the part of the Bill which endeavours to categorise murders and to make the murders so categorised in Clauses 5 and 6 subject to capital punishment. The Amendments would also have the effect of abolishing capital punishment in Scotland.
With regard to the first aim of the Amendments, we base ourselves firmly upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Having listened to these debates fairly fully, although I have not previously taken part in them, I have been interested to notice how the Government have on occasion come forward claiming the support of the Royal Commission for what they want to do. However, the provisions affected by our Amendment are precisely things which the Royal Commission did not recommend. The Royal Commission had this to say about the categorising of murders:
It is impracticable to frame a statutory definition of murder which would effectively limit the scope of capital punishment and would not have overriding disadvantages in other respects.
We cannot see why Scotland should have to incur overriding disadvantages merely

because England wants to act rather stupidly.
During our many debates on capital punishment, we have frequently heard how much better Scottish law is than English law in respect of murder. When the Bill becomes law, that may not be quite so true; in fact, there is one respect in which it will probably be worse. We may be able to say something about that later. However, I cannot see why there should be a desire to introduce into Scottish law a method of doing something which is wholeheartedly condemned by the Royal Commission. There is no reason why we should be dragged at the heels of England in this matter. I should have thought that the Scottish law officers, in spite of the fact that they had recently been rebuffed by Scottish judges on another Crown matter, would have been proud of their heritage and anxious to preserve it rather than that we should be dragged into the muddle which the English are getting themselves into by rejecting what the Royal Commission recommended.
These Amendments have the effect of abolishing capital punishment in Scotland. We debated this subject at great length when the Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was before the House. I should like to say a few words on some of the arguments then adduced in favour of retaining the death penalty in Scotland.
The first argument was that Scottish law was so superior to English law that there was no need to alter it. I have already pointed out that when the Bill becomes an Act that will not be so true and that in one respect we may be worse off. However, the argument about the superiority of Scottish law is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not capital punishment should be abolished in Scotland.
The second argument—used wrongly, because it was out of context—was that the Royal Commission had said that the scope of the law of murder in Scotland was satisfactory and that no amendment was needed. This argument was brought forward by hon. Members opposite as a reason why we should not abolish capital punishment in Scotland. The facts are, however, well known. The Royal Commission was not allowed to recommend


that capital punishment should be abolished; it was asked to make recommendations to amend the law of murder.
6.30 p.m.
The Royal Commission said that the law of murder in Scotland should not be amended and that its terms of reference did not permit it to recommend the abolition of capital punishment. However, that was a set of circumstances which do not bind us as Members of Parliament. We are able to discuss the subject free from the limits imposed on the Royal Commission. That second argument was not very valid.
Then we had the usual argument about capital punishment being a deterrent. The discussions on the Bill have clearly demonstrated that that argument is nonsense. All the provisions of the Bill make nonsense of that argument in respect of crimes which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) pointed out, horrify people far more than crimes which will be capital murder. My hon. Friend read a whole list taken from the Royal Commission's Report. The Government themselves take the view that capital punishment is no longer a deterrent in those cases.
The arguments we now get are on slightly different grounds. They are that capital punishment is necessary to preserve public order and to support the authorities of the Crown in the performance of their duty. It is difficult to support that argument for any time. The argument runs that, if capital punishment is seen as a deterrent, it is important that it should be used in respect of one set of persons in the community while it should not be used in respect of another set. One cannot examine the case without realising that, with this Bill, the Government have made nonsense of the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent.
Another argument, which probably carries a little more weight, is that after the war there was a period in Scotland when the officers of the Crown were rather glad that capital punishment existed as it prevented a certain amount of violence, which was spreading in Glasgow and the rest of Scotland. To take a period after the war is, in itself, not a very good

criterion. It is not a good foundation for examination or debate, because after one has been teaching people to kill, maim and wound in every conceivable manner for six years and has then thrown hundreds of thousands into civil life, one naturally expects a certain degree of violence.
The period immediately following a war is not a good example. In any case, the argument does not prove the necessity for maintaining capital punishment, because we do not know what would have happened had it not existed. It is easy for the Law Officers, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, to say that the number of murders began to decline and that capital punishment therefore seemed to act as a deterrent. There is no evidence about what would have happened had it not existed. It is as competent to assume the opposite as to assume what the Government assume, and it is equally justifiable.
I reject the arguments adduced when the matter was last debated for retaining capital punishment in Scotland. In none of them can I see anything of sufficient importance to warrant the continuance of capital punishment in Scotland. I am not a Scotsman, as I am sometimes reminded. I am not ashamed of that. I am as proud of being English as Scotsmen are of being Scots. I have spent the best part of my life in Scotland, and I think it is true that Scotland is legally on a rather higher level than England. There is a greater degree of civilisation in Scotland. I believe that the records over the past twenty or thirty years prove that.
I cannot see why we should not abolish capital punishment in Scotland. There is an immense amount of support for that. and certainly in Scotland there is not the opposition to abolition as is found in England. We have not had the cases in Scotland to create that opposition to abolition. Certainly, people I know are rather ashamed that we should retain this form of punishment. It is in accord with neither Christian traditions nor ethical principles, and a very large number would like to see it abolished. Let us make the experiment in Scotland. Let us lead once again in Scotland. Let us set the example so that when next the English are debating how to reform their criminal law of murder, they will once more say, "Look at what is happening in Scotland," and


quote Scotland as they have so often done in the past few months.
When this matter was last before the House, it was decided on a free vote by 213 to 157 votes to abolish capital punishment in Scotland. That is not a marginal majority, but almost a two-thirds majority in favour of abolishing capital punishment in Scotland. The Amendments give the Government the opportunity to keep faith with the House of Commons at least in one respect, that of Scotland. Let the will of the House of Commons about capital punishment be put into effect.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this final opportunity to do what the House of Commons very specifically, by a substantial majority—not a marginal majority, or by a handful of votes—wanted to do, a decision which created no great opposition in Scotland. Let us take that step forward. Let Scotland go forward to that better, higher state of civilisation—never mind what they do in England—and let us turn our backs on the follies of the Englishmen.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I support the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in favour of the Amendment. In one quite important respect he understated his own case. He was attempting to meet the argument advanced from the Government Front Bench that Scotland needed the death penalty in the years immediately after the war, and he submitted very forcibly that it was impossible to tell what would have happened if we had not had the death penalty during those post-war years.
It is possible to get some sort of idea at what might have happened by considering the Scottish experience immediately previously. It is true that in the post-war years, after the violence of the war, there was a tendency to greater violence in civil life, but we would also agree, looking back over the last 50 years of Scottish history, that if we wanted to choose a period which, on the surface, looked as if it would promote lawlessness, we should have taken the drab years of unemployment and depression in Scotland, in the 1930's.
In fact, during those years there was not a single execution in Scotland. From 1929 to 1938—black and dangerous years

for Scotland—there were 128 murders. During the previous period, from 1919 to 1928, there were 142 murders. So we get the very interesting fact that, during a period of virtual abolition in Scotland—when everybody knew that if a murder were committed there would not be an execution—we had the lowest number of murders, while, during a period when we had the minimum number of reprieves in Scotland, we had the highest number of murders. It is worth giving considerable weight to that evidence.
The main purpose of the Bill is to retain the death penalty for a group of murders committed by professional criminals, and especially in conjunction with the crime of robbery. If we look at the Scottish figures we discover a rather interesting fact, namely, that during the period from 1919 to 1928, when there was a minimum number of reprieves, five murders with robbery were committed, whereas during the period from 1929 to 1938, when all murderers were reprieved, and the professional criminal knew that, to put it at its very lowest, there was a very considerable chance of his not being executed if he committed murder in the course of a robbery, there were only two murders of that kind.
This evidence seems to show that the existence of the death penalty is not a deterrent in relation to murders committed in conjunction with robbery. On the Scottish figures—and it is only the Scottish figures of which the Minister must take cognisance—there is no case for retaining the death penalty for this group of murders.
This is an historic year for Scotland. It is the 250th anniversary of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland. One of the essential parts of that Treaty, which we show off so proudly to our constituents as we take them through the House of Lords, is the preservation of a separate Scottish legal system. It is no part of the argument of a Secretary of State for Scotland—no matter what party he belongs to—to plead for legal uniformity in a matter like this. We in Scotland should be proud of the fact that we have a separate Scottish legal system and our own separate Scottish legal traditions.
I do not say this because I believe that separatism by itself is of particular virtue but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, all


the evidence brought before the Royal Commission tends to show that in very important respects the Scottish legal practice in regard to the law of murder is more advanced and more humane than that of England.
6.45 p.m.
We have come to the end of a fairly long period of debate on the Bill, and the Scottish situation has come at the end of it. I ask the Secretary of State to look back over the proceedings on the Bill and to see it in perspective from a Scottish point of view. The Bill is very inadequate even for England, but at least it is a Bill which, in certain notable respects, reforms the law of murder in England and brings it more into line with that of Scotland. Surely it is the duty of the Minister to take action to keep Scotland ahead of England. Why should not we give a lead? There is no reason for being self-righteous or smug.
Scotland is a small country; England is a large one. It is therefore very much easier to experiment in social and criminological matters in Scotland, and I should have thought that when the Government were reforming the law of murder in England it would have been a very sensible step to abolish capital punishment altogether in Scotland, at least for an experimental period. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that such a provision would enjoy widespread support in Scottish public opinion.
I know that the Secretary of State is aware of the nature of public opinion in Scotland in favour of abolition. This public opinion has nothing to do with political considerations; it has spread outside the views of political parties. Those in favour of abolition include many Conservatives—active Conservative Party people in Scotland—and many citizens who have no particular political allegiance. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the letters which have appeared in the Scottish Press from leading public citizens in Scotland, such as the leader of the Conservative Party in the Glasgow Corporation; the leader of the Progressive Party, and leaders of the Labour Party. There have also been letters from members of the Scottish Church. A very considerable public opinion in Scotland is in favour of the abolition of capital punishment.
The Minister has just taken office, and he has been advised by the Scottish Press that he should earn a name for himself by announcing a decision upon the Forth road bridge. That is an easy thing for a Secretary of State for Scotland to do; everybody is agreed about that. Here is an opportunity for the Minister, in his first weeks of office, to earn a reputation for himself in connection with an issue about which most humane and socially advanced people feel very strongly. If he wishes to convince Scotland that she has in office somebody who is prepared to take a forward-looking view of these matters—somebody who is prepared to see that Scotland gives a lead to the rest of the United Kingdom and maintains the lead she has already today—he has the chance to do this, and I hope that he will announce that he is going to accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Mackie: I do not believe it is right that the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. East (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) should go without a word being said in opposition from an hon. Member on this side of the Committee. I hope that the new Secretary of State for Scotland—whom I wish to congratulate very heartily, in common with the two hon. Members who have spoken—will stoutly resist the proposal which has been made.
I shall not go nearly as wide in my argument as did the two hon. Members. It would be a very great mistake to try to bring in the question of Scottish nationalism in this matter—and that is the question which lay at the back of the arguments of both hon. Members. Further, they both proceeded on the assumption that public opinion in Scotland—or a very large section of it—wished to see a trial period of abolition of capital punishment in Scotland. They have quoted certain letters which appeared in the Scotsman newspaper.
With all respect to the ladies and gentlemen who write to the newspapers, they are by no means representative of the whole of the community. Very often, it is the strong and silent voice of the country which does not express itself vocally—and that applies to England and Wales as well—which is really representative of the nation as a whole. I do not believe that the majority of public opinion in


Scotland wishes at all to see even an experiment with the abolition of capital punishment in the Northern Kingdom.
I suppose that both hon. Members who preceded me would say, "Well, the House of Commons ought to decide," and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), whose Bill last Session undoubtedly led to the Government producing this one, would say, "The House of Commons ought to be in advance of public opinion and guide it." I certainly agree that that should be our view and our objective in very many matters concerning legislation, but here we are dealing with a matter which concerns the whole community, and we ought to take into account the view of the majority of the community when we are dealing with a matter which affects the lives and deaths of people in all ranks of society.
I have ventured to say that a considerable majority of public opinion in Scotland does not want to see this experiment made. I hope we shall not hear any hon. Member who follows me in the debate making any further suggestion about Scotland not being dragged at the heels of England, because that is a very wild suggestion indeed. I am very well aware as the hon. Member for Dundee. East has reminded us, that this year marks the anniversary of the Act of Union. I would remind the Committee that, by one of the most important provisions of that Act, the Scottish law system was preserved intact. We are not doing anything today to do away with that. We are merely suggesting in resisting this Amendment that the people of Scotland do not wish to see this experiment made.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East also spoke about letters written about people prominent in ecclesiastical circles in Scotland. I have talked to quite a few Ministers of the Church of Scotland and also to elders in my own division, and I think they are fairly representative of the views held in rural Scotland as a whole, and none of them wish to see this experiment made. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, hearing a muttered interjection of mine, said that we could only quote the Free Church of Scotland, but that is a small body in the north, which was unanimous in not wishing to see this experiment made. Although I do not agree with all the tenets of church government in a Church to which I do not

belong, I suggest that on this point they were certainly expressing the wishes of the majority of people in Scotland as a whole.
I hope that, when the time comes, the Secretary of State will resist this Amendment. If he does, he will be acting in support of the wishes of the majority, I feel sure, of the people of Scotland, and certainly of the balanced and informed opinion in that country.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) seemed to believe that we were actuated by motives of Scottish nationalism in putting forward this Amendment.

Mr. Mackie: I said I hoped not.

Mr. Ross: There would be nothing wrong, if we were, because the very Act of Union which has been so much quoted this afternoon did leave us with national control of our own legal system. Surely, if looking after something which is peculiar to Scotland is Scottish nationalism, then there is nothing to apologise for and nothing at which to sneer. That is the first of the things that I am going to say to the hon. Member for Galloway. The second is this. He said that he did not think that the evidence which we were putting forward was at all representative of the people of Scotland.

Mr. Mackie: Of the majority of the people of Scotland.

Mr. Ross: Well, representative of the people. As far as I know, there is only one assembly that meets annually which is at all representative of the people of Scotland, and in fact I think that it is more or less the home of democracy in Scotland. It is the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I think the hon. Member for Galloway himself would say that that body is representative of the people of Scotland.

Mr. Mackie: Certainly.

Mr. Ross: It is not only representative of the ministers, but also of the elders in the Church, and it is interesting to see what they said in May of last year. They were asked to pass a resolution relating to the abolition of capital punishment, and, when this resolution was going


through, an attempt was made to put an addendum to it in the following terms—
but believe it to be the duty of the State to put to death some murderers.—
in other words, what this Bill does. The Very Rev. Charles L. Warr, a former Moderator, in asking the Assembly to reject it, said this:
I cannot see personally how there can be any room for compromise like this between the abolitionists and the retentionists. The death penalty is right or it is wrong; for the Christian, in my view, it is a complete repudiation of the redemptive power of the Gospel, a denial of the sanctity of human personality and a denial of the human soul in the sight of its Maker.
Out of that Assembly of over 3,000 representative people from all parts of Scotland, including, I am perfectly sure, the constituency of the hon. Member for Galloway—

Mr. Mackie: They voted against it.

Mr. Ross: —that addendum received only a dozen votes. If ever we have had a representative opinion expressed in Scotland, it was expressed thoroughly there.
When one considers the things that have been said from the other side of the House on previous occasions, one is really surprised that the hon. Member for Galloway is the only Scottish Conservative back bench Member now in his place. The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) and all the rest of them should have been here today telling the Government what they are doing, because what the Government are doing here is saying that the punishment for murder in Scotland in future—the punishment of hanging—will be limited to certain types of murder. This certainly in no way meets the objections which they raised on the last occasion we discussed this matter, when these hon. Members put forward an Amendment which proposed to leave Scotland out of the operation of the abolition Bill.
The hon. Member for Galloway has said we must not say that Scotland must not be dragged at the heels of England, but that was exactly the argument used by his hon. and right hon. Friends on the last occasion, and I did not see him rise in his place to protest and say how silly that argument was.

Mr. Mackie: I did say that I was not very enamoured of the Bill, but that it was better than complete abolition. I regretted very much that a compromise had to be introduced.

Mr. Ross: There is far more information in the hon. Gentleman's interjections than in his speech. If he thinks so, and if he was quite impassioned about it. as a matter of life and death to every single person in Scotland, why has he not put down an Amendment to retain the Scottish practice and the legal enactments relating to it just as they are? But he is prepared to see the Government tamper with it to such an extent that probably four out of five, who otherwise might possibly have been hanged, will no longer be hanged. I cannot understand his attitude in that respect, and I very much regret it.
7.0 p.m.
He said that we do not want a trial abolition period in Scotland, but the fact is that we have had it. For seventeen years no murderer was hanged in Scotland, and during those years there was no increase in the crime of murder in the way in which fears had been expressed that there would be. In fact there was an actual reduction in the figures. So we have had a period of trial and proved that, by withdrawing this deterrent, there is no increase in murder. The Scottish Office is not properly asserting itself in the interests of Scottish law and practice.
The right hon. Gentleman has already had our congratulations. He has not yet earned them, and I hope that he will do so. I should like to say a word for the "mon that is awa'". I think he has been unfairly treated by many people in Scotland. He carried the high office longer than anyone else in living memory. He exerted a considerable influence where it was required. That may have been through accident of friendship and the rest of it, but let us recognise that the influence was there. If the present Minister has not already that influence, I hope that he will assert himself and have the full power and support of hon. Members from Scotland. But he must look at this from the point of view of whether we want to make improvements under existing conditions. He must assert himself and not be held by a desire that though they want to make a


certain advance in England, there is no need to go any further in Scotland.
The fact is proved by what has been done in other parts of this Bill. The law and practice in relation to murder in Scotland has been considered to be in advance of England and Wales, and I do not think there is any doubt about it. That being so, I think it arises, out of the very nature of Scottish law, Scottish jurists and Scottish people, that when we have regarded the punishment of murder, we have experienced the other attitude altogether. Where we have not actually legislated for it, we have been able in practice to do something which is more civilised and much more lenient. Wherever a Scottish juryman can find a way round this awful penalty, he has found it, and we have not required legislation to do so. If in Scotland, with our experience of law—we have few lawyers from Scotland on the back benches in this House; that is probably because every Scotsman is himself a lawyer—there had been ways of going beyond this, they would have been found.
To my mind, the Secretary of State is accepting for Scotland this definition of degrees of murder, which is a solution provided by the Government to a problem which defied the Royal Commission. We should make no mistake about that. The Commission looked for it. In paragraph 534 on page 189 of its Report, it states:
We began our inquiry with the determination to make every effort to see whether we could succeed where so many have failed, and discover some effective method of classifying murders so as to confine the death penalty to the more heinous. Where degrees of murder have been introduced, they have undoubtedly resulted in limiting the application of capital punishment"—
the kind of thing that Scotsmen would have done, if they could have done so—
and for this reason they have commended themselves to public opinion, but in our view their advantages are far outweighed by the theoretical and practical objections which we have described. We conclude with regret that the object of our quest is chimerical and that it must be abandoned.
And the Government, in a few short weeks, are able to find a solution, under pressure of a decision of Parliament, and in order to placate some other supporters of the old Scottish latter-day Lord Braxfield. For the benefit of my English colleagues, I would explain that Lord Braxfield was a well-known Scottish

judge who regarded everyone who came before him as "none the waur for hanging." There are still some latter-day Braxfields on the benches opposite.
The position is that the Scottish Office participated in this, or was told about it, after a decision had been made to solve a problem that in two years the Royal Commission, ardently anxious to solve, had failed to solve. I am surprised that, even during the short period in office, the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to accept this compromise, this classifying of certain kinds of murder—if the right hon. Gentleman would like to make his maiden speech now, I will sit down.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): My "maiden speech," if that was it, was that I did not know that I had yet spoken.

Mr. Ross: If the right hon. Gentleman gives me room for hope, I will sit down right away. I have been to a few Burns suppers and remember a few words of Burns about people who are in Parliament—

Captain Richard Pilkington: Who was he?

Mr. Ross: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not going to tempt me. I should love to give him an answer to that.
This retention of the death penalty for certain murders, so far as I can find out, is defended by the English defenders of this Bill for the only reason that there are murders which particularly affect public order. I have not been able to follow that out through these classifications, which include murder done in the furtherance or course of theft; murder by shooting or causing explosion; murder while resisting arrest; the murder of a police officer and the murder of a prison officer. I do not think that will satisfy the cold logic of the Scottish people. In fact, I doubt whether it will satisfy the people of Britain as a whole. The fact is that the most calculated type of murderer may well escape.
On the last occasion we debated this matter the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South referred to Lord Justice Cooper who said:
We have practically now reached the position in Scotland where only intentional killing is murder.


If there is anything more intentional than poisoning, and if this is the interpretation of the reasons for the move towards leniency in Scottish law, I am afraid that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in giving way to this kind of thing, is flouting that ideal. What it demonstrates is the impossibility that justice should proceed along this way, and that there is really no other way out in respect of this than complete abolition.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to take that step. We have already been told that we are a comparatively law-abiding country; that our record in respect of murder is much better than that in this lawless South. The figures have been quoted before. They are for Scotland 2·5 per 100,000, whereas in England the figure was, if it is not now, double that.
Our record on sentences of death carried out is about one person hanged in every 2½ years over 30 years. If we are now to limit capital murders by this Bill, obviously the number of those who will be hanged in Scotland, if at all, will be infinitesimal. For that very small number, whose value is absolutely nil and cannot be justified by anything found by the Royal Commission, we are to flout the opinion of the leaders of the Scottish Church and the Assembly of the Church of Scotland with respect to deep feelings about the redemptive power of the Gospel. The determination to retain this power for these very few with all the grim trappings of the gallows is something which cannot be justified by any Secretary of State for Scotland.
I said earlier that the right hon. Gentleman has our congratulations; I sincerely hope he will now earn them by showing some independence of these backward administrators and legislators of England and Wales, that he will demonstrate that we are determined to keep our law in Scotland and the practice of our law very much ahead of that in England.

Mr. George Lawson: I do not wish to attempt to repeat the arguments of my hon. Friends, but one point I feel has not been made adequately. That point only I wish to make now.
I do not think the Secretary of State for Scotland in his first speech in that office would wish to speak for a Bill

which would actually worsen the position of Scotland compared with the present position. This Bill very materially improves the law in England. It makes the law with reference to hanging much more humane in England and Wales, but it certainly does not do so in Scotland. Scotland has been excluded from the first part of the Bill because that part is thought not to be necessary in Scotland. It is thought that the practice in Scotland is such as to make the provisions laid down for England and Wales unnecessary in Scotland as the practice there very much embraces the suggested practice. In Part Scotland is brought in, and in that there is the highlighting of certain types of murder in such a manner that, I submit, it will be expected in future, when murders are committed by these means in Scotland, that no longer will mercy be shown but the murderers will be treated exactly as in England and Wales.
In Scotland, there is scope for differentiation in cases of poisoning and shooting, or when a person caught in the act of theft strikes the person arresting him in an effort to escape and kill that person. As the position exists, there is scope for judgment, discrimination and decision whether or not such murders should be treated as capital murder, but, as the Bill is drafted, that scope would be taken away. It is not a question of definition, of saying, "You can have your scope as in the past in all murders except these", but in future, any murder of this character will be regarded as capital murder. That was not the case in Scotland up to now, but it will be in future.
7.15 p.m.
I submit to the Secretary of State that it is not a question of bringing English or Welsh law to a position comparable with or as advanced as Scottish law, but it is a worsening of the Scottish practice we have today. Although we might argue whether Scotland should be put ahead of England and certain provisions made for Scotland and not for England, I submit that to worsen the position in Scotland is something at which we should take very serious offence. We are not talking Scottish nationalism, but we take pride in Scottish humanitarianism and the attitude we have adopted towards problems of this kind.
The Government are saying that that is no longer to be permitted in Scotland,


that we are not to be allowed to be more humanitarian, more kindly, more generous, tolerant and understanding than in England and Wales, but that we shall conform to the same standard. We are being made to toe the line. We are having taken from us a choice which at present we have. If the Secretary of State tells us he supports that, this is a black day for Scotland.
Something was said about the former Secretary of State. We all liked the former Secretary of State; one thing we admired in him was his courage. When dealing with the Food and Drugs Bill, he adopted a Measure which was not in conformity with the English Measure and which was certainly not liked by the Government of that time. He said, "This is sound", and applied it to Scotland. Let us see if the present Secretary of State is prepared to do that, and to see that Scotland is not worsened in its existing position.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): First, I wish to thank hon. Members who have made kind remarks about my assumption of my present office. Of my predecessor. I only say with all sincerity that if, after having served for some time, I feel that I have done half as well as he did for Scotland, I shall be profoundly grateful.
I have listened to the arguments very carefully indeed. We have heard statistics quoted and the words "public opinion" used several times in support of different points of view. The short answer to those arguments is that statistics in this, as in so many other cases, can be used to prove almost anything. In considering the figures which were given most reasonably by two hon. Members opposite, one must remember that during the period when there were no hangings in Scotland, the death penalty was in reserve. No one can prove anything one way or the other as to what would have happened if it had not been in reserve. All we know is what the figures were with the death penalty in reserve. One can draw conclusions as hon. Members opposite do, one way, and we on this side can draw conclusions another.
In a few minutes I will come in more detail to some of the major issues which have been raised, but I wanted to make clear that we cannot prove convincingly what the death penalty in reserve has

meant during those years. But we can look to the Royal Commission for certain remarks in relation to offences against law and order and we can quote the Royal Commission rather differently from the manner in which it has been quoted by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I agree that if the death penalty had been in reserve for two, three or four years there would be great force in the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but in fact no hangings took place in Scotland over a period of 17 years. For half of that period criminals in Scotland must have gone about their criminal ways with very considerable assurance that they would not suffer hanging if they committed murder.

Mr. Maclay: That is not necessarily a very conclusive argument, because at a later stage hanging took place, and all through the 17 years it was realised by potential criminals, by people who might have carried arms and probably did not carry arms when setting about their normal illegal activities, that they might be hanged if they committed murder. There are some professional wrongdoers who, unfortunately, have a certain pride in their profession. One of the things which I have learned is that many of the members of that class are very determined not to carry arms because of the ultimate possibility of their using the arms when they are on a job. One can argue this point indefinitely, because different people will always draw different conclusions from the figures. What we are discussing at the moment is whether we can have one supreme penalty in England and Wales and a different penalty in Scotland.
I am certainly not one of those who think that everything ought to be done in Scotland exactly the same as in England, but there are cases when it would be folly to have startlingly different procedures, and this is one of them. If the Committee will permit me, I will try to pull together some of the arguments on this question of the application of the Bill to Scotland, even at the risk of being a little repetitious of previous debates, particularly debates last year. I want to lead up to the key point of the Royal Commission argument which has been used, and I would rather do it in the full setting of an argument than deal piecemeal with the various points raised by hon. Members opposite.
Under the Bill, only the penalty for murder will be altered in Scotland. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the death penalty will be restricted to murders committed in certain circumstances, which are defined in Clauses 5 and 6. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) read them out. Had he not done so, I should have done so; but I do not want to repeat them now. They are worth looking at. The circumstances which are set out in Clauses 5 and 6 are the circumstances for which the ultimate penalty is retained, and the Amendment which we are discussing would abolish the death penalty even in those cases.
I agree that the differences in the legal systems of the two countries, and particularly differences in the law of murder, which are being reduced by the Bill, are largely irrelevant to the issue which we are now debating. On the fundamental question of penalty, the Government maintain—and I agree entirely with my colleagues in this matter—that there ought to be no difference between the House's decision for Scotland and its decision for England and Wales.

Mr. Willis: Surely for years there has been a very big difference in the law relating to suicide. A partner in a suicide pact in Scotland was not liable to be convicted of attempted murder, but I understand that he could have been so convicted in England. That is a very big difference in the penalty for a similar offence.

Mr. Ross: Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with that point, may I put another point to him? He says there should be no difference in the decision.

Mr. Maclay: No difference in the penalty.

Mr. Ross: The penalty follows the decision. In Scotland there is a definite difference, because there is a verdict of "not proven".

Mr. Maclay: Certainly, but I do not think that affects the main point which I made, that where there is a clear verdict of capital murder the penalties should be identical in the two countries. I am convinced of that.
If I may continue one of the arguments in favour of it, I feel that I cannot do better than quote what my predecessor said on this point last May during the debates on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Collie (Mr. S. Silverman). He said—in the opposite context, but it still stands—that it could not be regarded as satisfactory
to enact a law which would result in a different penalty being imposed in Scotland for a crime for which the existing penalty and the degree of moral guilt are identical in both countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 2166.]
That is a very strong argument.
We think it would be illogical and inexpedient to abolish capital punishment in Scotland while retaining it in England and Wales for murder in the several circumstances set out in Clauses 5 and 6. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained in the earlier debates, the ground for retaining the death penalty in those circumstances is that it will prevent crimes which particularly endanger law and order and which are specially likely to be prevented by retaining the ultimate sanction of the death penalty.
At this stage of the Bill, when we are discussing Scotland, it seems worth while recalling that the Royal Commission, in its examination of the deterrent effect of capital punishment, made no distinction between Scotland and England. I quote from paragraph 61 of the Royal Commission's Report—a long quotation—in which, surveying the evidence on the point, the Royal Commission said:
Of more importance was the evidence of the representatives of the police and prison service. From them we received virtually unanimous evidence, in both England and Scotland, to the effect that they were convinced of the uniquely deterrent value of capital punishment in its effect on professional criminals. On these the fear of the death penalty may not only have the direct effect of deterring them from using lethal violence to accomplish their purpose, or to avoid detection by silencing the victim of their crime, or to resist arrest. It may also have the indirect effect of deterring them from carrying a weapon lest the temptation to use it in a tight corner should prove irresistible … we cannot treat lightly the considered and unanimous views of these experienced witnesses, who have had many years of contact with criminals. Some of our most distinguished judicial witnesses—notably the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Humphreys and the Lord Justice General—felt no doubt that they were right.


We, too, feel bound to give great weight to this testimony, which includes that of the late Lord Cooper, who spoke with particular authority. We are fortunate, as has been pointed out already, in having a low murder rate in Scotland. For the first 50 years of this century the average figure was 2·52 murders per million of our population recorded each year. This does not prove, however, that the death penalty is no longer necessary. We do not know, as I have pointed out earlier, how many potential murderers are at present deterred by the death penalty. The low murder rate could be argued equally strongly to indicate the sanction of capital punishment as a deterrent in Scotland.
Believeing, as we do, in the death penalty in the restricted circumstances mentioned in Clauses 5 and 6 as a necessary safeguard, we could not contemplate making an experiment by abolishing it in Scotland. With our responsibility for maintaining law and order, we could not properly abandon in Scotland sanctions which are to remain available South of the Border.
For these reasons, and although reluctant not to have earned the enthusiastic praise of hon. Members opposite straight away, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am very disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman and in what he said. Indeed, I am running some risk of rising in order to tender my congratulations to him on achieving his office and at the same time to express my disappointment at his first exercise of his powers.
Last Session I ventured to intervene in a discussion on Wales and escaped with my life, and I therefore felt emboldened to run a certain risk tonight and to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. I wish I could now do that as enthusiastically as I had intended when the discussion on this Amendment began. I am, however, very disappointed in what he has said. I am sorry that there are not more Scottish Members on the other side of the Committee to join with me in expressing disappointment.
I realise that most of the coherent Conservative Scottish Members are, of course, Joint Under-Secretaries of State in the right hon. Gentleman's Department.

Nevertheless, I would have thought that at least some of the others would have attended on such an occasion as this. I think that a number of them would have had a great deal of sympathy with the cases deployed by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and for Dundee. East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). It seemed to me that they stated their case with a relentless logic that the Secretary of State himself did not destroy. The fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East reminded us, when the House discussed this matter on an earlier occasion it decided, by a vote of 213 to 157, to abolish capital punishment for Scotland. That seems to support my hon. Friend's contention that there is a great deal of feeling on this subject north of the Border.
In spite of all the efforts of the Secretary of State to convince us of the serious state of crime in Scotland and of the uncivilised character of the population whose welfare he is safeguarding in this House, I have always had the impression that in this matter Scotland has always been a great deal more civilised than we have been in England, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East had to say about the long period when there was no hanging in Scotland, and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) certainly sustained me in that point of view which I had held until I heard the Secretary of State speak.
With great respect to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) and to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that the point of this Amendment is whether we preserve hanging or abolish it. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell really reached the heart of the matter when he said that the whole point here is whether we are to preserve something which has been good in Scotland and whether we are to preserve the separate legal system that Scotland has had for so long. Surely that must be a point that appeals to everybody with a sense of tradition and with a real wish to conserve what is good in the system that history has handed down to us.
I can well understand the attitude of my hon. Friends from Scotland, who are really taking the view that if changes are to be made they should be changes for the better and not for the worse. It is


a little ironical that, just at the moment when we, south of the Border, are incorporating in our law one of the bettor provisions of the Scottish law, we should be going out of our way to foist upon the Scots this quite ridiculous hotchpotch which the Government have brought here for our consideration. If the system in Scotland were being improved, I am sure that my hon. Friends would be prepared to give their support, but they are not prepared to saddle their constituents with this absurd Anglo-Saxon concoction which has come out of the Home Office.
I think that all of us are getting a little disheartened and depressed at the way in which this Bill is going. We have stressed over and over again many of the considerations which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East laid before us earlier this evening. Over and over again we use the arguments; over and over again we get either the same reply or no reply at all. Although I have been happy to learn from tonight's discussion that my hon. Friends from Scotland have been watching our vain struggles with some sympathy, nevertheless I am beginning to wonder whether we are making any headway at all.
My hon. Friends are perfectly entitled to divide the House on this issue. They have put their case with great force and great clarity. The case that they have advanced is an overwhelming one, but they get no effective reply from the Secretary of State, just as we south of the Border, get no effective reply from the Home Secretary. I have very grave doubts whether any of our discussions are having any effect at all.
It may be that my hon. Friends will feel that they could be using their own time and the time of the Committee more effectively by passing on to some of the other matters which are before us for consideration tonight, but if they feel strongly that they cannot impose upon their constituents the same silly system which we are adopting in this country and feel it necessary to divide the House on this issue, I should certainly be with them, although I am very doubtful whether anything we can do at this stage could alter the Government's mind.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am grateful for the assistance which we in Scotland have had from our hon. Friend the Member

for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), and for the sympathetic consideration which he has given to our very strong feelings. I should like to say to him that we feel that this is a matter of such importance and principle in Scotland that we should, in fact, like to divide the Committee unless, in our subsequent discussions with the Secretary of State, we hear something rather more promising from him.
In his first appearance in his new office, the Secretary of State for Scotland has given us a very disappointing answer on an issue that does not, primarily, divide the two sides of the Committee, but is a Scottish issue in its most distinctive form. I had hoped that he would have wished to say that he had come into office only a short time ago but realised this was a distinctive Scottish issue and would like to give further consideration to it, perhaps on Report, before finally committing himself.
I understood that he really based his case on what his predecessor said before him about preserving uniformity on this matter between Scotland and England. He said that in relation to the penalty for the crime of murder he did not want differences between the two countries. If I may say so, that does not really bear examination at all, because of course for many years there have been real, important and practical differences between the penalty for murder in Scotland and that in England.
I would direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 382 of the Royal Commission's Report, where is discussed the issue of diminished responsibility in the Scottish practice, which is substantially different from the English practice. In the middle of that paragraph we find this statement:
An examination we have made of the records of seven selected cases shows that in none was the accused certifiably insane, and that in three the psychiatric element of the defence was weak. While such comparisons are inevitably untrustworthy, our impression was that, if these seven men had been tried in England, they would probably all have been convicted of murder and sentenced to death.…
When the Royal Commission, with all the natural caution of such a body says
that, if these seven men had been tried in England, they would probably all have been convicted of murder and sentenced to death


we have a very clear illustration, from extensive investigations, that in fact the penalty for murder in Scotland has been different from that in England. Our law is operated more humanely. This plea for uniformity which has been put before us is not only the wrong kind of plea for a Scottish Secretary of State to make on a matter in which Scottish traditions are so involved, but is one not sustainable in the light of evidence over a very long period.
I would beg the right hon. Gentleman most earnestly to reconsider this matter and to see whether he could not give us a more optimistic statement on his outlook. Will he not, perhaps, say that he will give this matter further consideration before a final decision is taken in relation to murder in Scotland?

Mr. Willis: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), I am very disappointed with the reply of the Secretary of State for Scotland. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman did not make much of a reply to the arguments advanced from this side of the Committee. Apart from making a few perfunctory observations, all that the right hon. Gentleman did was to read a brief which had obviously been read by the Home Secretary when replying to the English Members on Clauses 5 and 6. It may have been a different brief, but it was practically the same argument.
The right hon. Gentleman's reasons for doing that was explained when he said, "We could not really allow the position in Scotland with regard to the death penalty to be different from that in England". But, of course, they have never been the same. This is the first attempt to make the position in Scotland and that in England the same. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) made a very pertinent and strong case. People who in Scotland escape the death penalty would in England, as has been pointed out, have been sentenced to death. That is true in a number of cases. The Scottish verdict of "not proven" is quite different from anything that exists in England, and has allowed Scottish juries to exercise a humane discretion where they have had any doubt at all about a person's guilt. That is very important in Scotland, and it will still be in existence after this Bill is passed.
The law relating to suicide is, or was, totally different in Scotland from the law in England. No matter how we look at this question, the very basis of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments do not bear examination for a moment. I am surprised that the Lord Advocate should sit next to him and allow him to get away with this sort of thing. Indeed, we ought to have had a reply from the Lord Advocate. We do not hear him very often; we certainly should have heard him on this very important legal matter.
There have been one or two references to statistics, but I did not use any statistics when I made my case because I know that statistics can be used for almost any purpose. When the right hon. Gentleman said he did not know what would have happened if there had been no death penalty, and argued that the very low rate of murder in Scotland occurred whilst the death penalty was capable of being used though in fact it was not used, I take it that he regarded the existence of the death penalty as having some deterrent value.
But, as I have already pointed out, it ignores the fact that the Government have made nonsense of the deterrent argument. Apparently they believe that it exists only in respect of a certain section of the community. That was the right hon. Gentleman's final conclusion, that we should retain the death penalty to protect officers of the law in carrying out their duties and to discourage people from carrying arms. I have listened to those arguments, and whatever their relevance might be in England, I am unable to understand their relevance in Scotland.
As I have said before, we have not had in Scotland the cases which have occurred in England and which have high-lighted all these matters. I think that anybody looking back over the years since the war will agree that there have been in England a number of cases which have high-lighted certain types of crime and have aroused a certain amount public sympathy. But where is the Scottish evidence? Where are the cases in Scotland that have high-lighted these forms of murder? I do not know where they are, and the right hon. Gentleman certainly referred to none of them when he tried to answer our case.
7.45 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to have given us some evidence. He should not have based his case on a general survey of the evidence made by the Royal Commission which, in the main, was evidence based upon English witnesses. I agree that certain Scotsmen gave evidence, but the basis of the arguments is to be found in England and not in Scotland. We ought to have had a better answer than we have had from the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly if we do not get a better answer than we have had, we ought to divide the Committee on this very important issue.

Mr. Ross: I am disappointed with the Secretary of State. If this is going to be his customary attitude, I can only say that the silence of his predecessor is preferred to his utterances. He tells us that we cannot have startlingly different penalties. Why not? What we want are the right penalties. In any case, if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, we cannot have startlingly different penalties without there being something wrong, there must have been something wrong for a long time, and he, when he was a back bencher, failed in his duty in allowing such a state of affairs to exist in relation to murder and to suicide.
It is not good enough to laugh off this business of the "not proven" verdict. The very fact that an English jury has to say "yes" or "no"—black or white—whereas in Scotland it is "yes" or "no" or "maybe", more or less proves the point that has been made time and again that the whole attitude in Scotland in relation to this matter has been one of leniency.
I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland should say that we cannot have different penalties. We have had them, and our tradition in Scotland is one that we believe to be right. We should be proceeding along those lines instead of waiting for England to catch up with us.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the seventeen years suspension of the death penalty in Scotland did not make any difference to our argument because the death penalty was there in reserve, and that in any case, it had to be brought into being eventually. There might be some justification for saying that if he could tell me that the people for whom it

had to be brought back are covered by this Bill. If my recollection is right, they are not so covered. That in itself destroys any value that the right hon. Gentleman's speech may have had.
While the right hon. Gentleman was reading the brief I thought that it had been prepared by someone in the Colonial Office rather than in the Scottish Office. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do very much better in the future. He made no reference to the attitude of the Church of Scotland. He made no effort to answer that point at all, and I thought that at the least it merited some comment.

Mr. Paget: It was not in the brief.

Mr. Ross: That is one of the reasons why I thought that the brief was the product of the Colonial Office rather than the Scottish Office.
I am indeed sorry that we should have this sort of thing from the right hon. Gentleman. I sincerely hope that we shall hear from the Lord Advocate in this subject. There have been many occasions when he has been deprived of the opportunity of speaking by his English colleagues. We were anxious to hear him, and we have heard too little from him. I sincerely hope that he will give us an answer.
There has been absolutely no justification at all for what the Government are proposing to do. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that these things have special relation to law and order. May I remind him that the law relating to capital punishment in Scotland is related not only to murder; death is the penalty for treason and for the wilful shooting, stabbing, poisoning or strangling of any of Her Majesty's subjects or the throwing of sulphuric acid or other corrosive substance with intent to murder or to cause grievous bodily harm. We find that made clear in paragraph 18 of the Report of the Royal Commission.
Why is it that law and order should be specially protected by this Measure in relation to murder by shooting? We are forgetting all about stabbing, poisoning, strangling, and all the other ways.

Mr. Paget: Razors.

Mr. Ross: I was about to point out that if in the past there had been any difficulties with gangs in the industrial part of Scotland, the instruments were


not usually guns, but razors, the end of a bottle, or something like that. Certainly, these things have been very much exaggerated and, in my view, quite unfairly so. But if we are to have this law in Scotland, then it is up to the Secretary of State to justify it, not merely to say that it is a good thing but to prove to the people of Scotland that it is right, not merely to say that we are to have this because it is the same as the law in England and we cannot have two penalties.
We have always had a different system, and we pride ourselves, surely, on our independence of judgment, on our tradition in respect of law and our progress in respect of law. I sincerely hope that the Lord Advocate will address himself to this matter; otherwise we must carry on with this debate for some time.

Mr. Paget: I hope that the Secretary of State will, after hearing all these arguments, feel that this is a matter upon which it is worth while for him to keep his mind open until he knows something about it. The one thing which was plain when he came to speak was that he knew nothing whatever about the subject. One can readily understand it; he has come recently to office, and it is impossible to get hold of everything at once.
As to the Scottish aspects, that is quite understandable, but it was about the English aspects that he so plainly knew nothing whatever or he would not have read us a brief which was at least two years out of date. The right hon. Gentleman's brief was what the English started on two years ago. Piece by piece, it has been torpedoed. His English colleagues would not have dared to trot out all that stuff. It all went years ago, yet we have it all trotted out in our debate today. The right hon. Gentleman read to us all the stuff which we had rejected years ago.
This subject is too important for such treatment as that. It is surely time that the right hon. Gentleman, in his new office, said that he appreciates that this is a subject to which it is worth applying his mind and that, when he does so, he will apply it openly and see if there is something to be said.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has just

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to apply his mind again to the question as to how far this matter affects Scotland. We should like to help him to apply his mind to the matter. I suggest that one of the ways in which he could learn to apply his mind to it and survey the whole situation from the Scottish point of view is this. Even at this stage, he should arrange with his colleagues for the matter to be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. I have never been able to understand why a matter of this kind, where the law is so very different from the law of England, should not be discussed by Scottish Members.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the Scottish Grand Committee on this Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: I did think that this procedure would have been helpful to the Secretary of State in the process of applying his mind to the problem.

The Temporary Chairman: It may or may not be helpful to the Secretary of state, but it is out of order.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Sir Norman. Might I remind you that when this matter was last before us and we had an Amendment from the other side of the Committee proposing to do much the same as this one does, the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) made this very point and discussed the question of a separate Scottish Bill to deal with it. and she was in order.

The Temporary Chairman: I was not in the Chair when the noble Lady made the suggestion. It was certainly not on this Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: If that is your Ruling, Sir Norman, I will pass on.
I suggest that the Secretary of State should consider some of the traditions which have hitherto prevailed in Scotland. There was a very famous Scottish Lord Advocate, Mr. Craigie Aitchison. I am quite sure that if the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland were to look back at the opinions given by Mr. Craigie Aitchison, afterward Lord Aitchison, especially in relation to the law of murder and homicide in Scotland, they would find that those observations


and opinions expressed by Mr. Craigie Aitchison would help them to adopt a more progressive outlook than has hitherto been shown in the discussion of this Bill.
I remember that at one time I used to meet Lord Aitchison very frequently when he was the Member for Kilmarnock. I am sure that the arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton must have been based on an understanding and interpretation of the Scottish law of murder and homicide so frequently argued in the Scottish courts by Lord Aitchison.
In discussing this matter we must remember that one cannot lump together Scottish law and English law. A man who is on trial for murder in Scotland gets a far better chance of a reasonably humane verdict than a man on a similar charge in the English dock.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Mr. M. Philips Price (Gloucestershire, West) indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) seems to doubt that. May I point out that it would be quite impossible in Scotland to have the spectacle of a man charged with murder being tried first in the magistrates' court. That is indeed a very important matter. If a man is charged with murder in Scotland, there is no possibility of there being any sort of dress rehearsal in the sheriff court before he goes to the High Court.
8.0 p.m.
I do not wish to be too critical of the English procedure, but it is a fact that this dress rehearsal of charge and trial, with all the sensational publicity that such proceedings receive in the daily and Sunday Press in these days, does prejudice in advance the trial proper. Of course it prejudices the jury.
In Scotland it would be impossible, as the Lord Advocate will agree, if there had been a sensational charge of murder, for the papers to be full of it before the trial in the High Court or even before the jury was empanelled. So I suggest to the Lord Advocate that he should put to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the need for keeping this Part of the Bill, so it affects Scotland, out of the Bill. Let us have a new Bill. If it is important to have separate

Measures for Scotland dealing with rates and rent, why should it not be equally possible to have a separate Bill for Scotland dealing with life and death?
I suggest that the time has come when the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate should take the enlightened point of view on this Amendment that I am sure legal and public opinion in Scotland demand.

Mr. Ross: We understand and appreciate the difficulties of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman is very new to his job, as he made fairly obvious tonight. We should have the advantage here of a man who has been studying this matter for years and has always been denied the chance to speak on it. I do not think I should be out of order in asking that the Lord Advocate, who is the spokesman for Scotland in such matters and who has been studying the matter for so long, should address the Committee.

Mr. Willis: I must support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) concerning the Lord Advocate. We are in a ridiculous position tonight, in that we are discussing the law of murder, something affecting men's lives. We are passing a Bill which will radically change the whole of the Scottish law relating to murder. That is what we are doing, and the chief Law Officer of the Crown for Scotland has not a cheep to say about it. What does the right hon. Gentleman think that people will say in Scotland tomorrow? What does he think his colleagues will say in Parliament House tomorrow? What does he think the public will say tomorrow when this Committee of the House of Commons can make the most drastic change in the law of murder for Scotland and the Lord Advocate sits silent on the Government Bench?
In spite of the fact that the Bill has been bitterly attacked from this side of the Chamber, we are entitled to expect that the chief Law Officer for Scotland should tell us why these changes should be made, what they mean in terms of Scottish conditions, what change they can bring about in Scottish practice, whether they affect Scottish practice. We do not know. We have never been told. Are these provisions supported by the Bench in Scotland? Are they supported by the Faculty of Advocates? Who supports


them? We are entitled to have a word from the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this important matter.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I did not intend to intervene on this Amendment, but I will crave the indulgence of the Committee for a moment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) stated that the Committee is at present discussing the law of murder. He is in error in that matter. We are discussing the penalty for murder in this Amendment.

Mr. Willis: We are discussing whether Clauses 5 and 6 of this Bill shall apply to Scotland, and those Clauses affect the law of murder in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman again uses the words "the law of murder". As I understand this Bill, the law of murder is dealt with in Part I of the Bill, and that does not apply to Scotland. Part II, to which the Amendment before the Committee relates, deals with liability to the death penalty. In so far as I could have assisted the Committee on the law of murder, I should have been only too delighted to intervene, but the only relevance to this Amendment is liability to the death penalty.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I cannot allow the Lord Advocate to get away with this. In the first place, he should have spoken to us at a much earlier stage in our discussions. I shudder to think what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) would have done if he had found it necessary to carry on the English part of these debates without hearing a word from the Attorney-General.
The Lord Advocate is the legal expert for Scotland on the benches opposite, and the least respect he could have paid to this highly important matter would have been to intervene at a much earlier stage. When we finally got him to his feet we hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would treat us with a little more respect than legalistic hair-splitting, because the Amendment is to a proposal by the Government to change the law of Scotland in relation to the crime of murder. Whether this is something to do with the penalty or with the law of murder is legal hair-splitting. What we want from the Lord Advocate, and we are entitled to have it, is some case put for

the proposal that the Government are making.
We have had from the Secretary of State for Scotland—perhaps all we could get from him in his present circumstances—only his simple, official brief saying that we ought to remain uniform with England. It was a brief that did not stand up to the slightest examination, and it was not an answer which dealt with any of the points raised by this side of the Committee, nor was it a statement that put the case for the change which the Government are proposing to make.
We are entitled to have from the chief Law Officer for Scotland on such a vital matter as this, in the biggest change in the criminal law of Scotland that we have had for many years, at least some estimate of the change this will mean in Scotland. What does the Lord Advocate think it will mean in terms of the reduction of the number of executions if the Government have their way? How many people are involved? As far as I can see from the figures, the number of people in Scotland within the categories for whom murder is retained in the Bill amounted over fifty years to about thirteen.
The Secretary of State himself said that these statistics have to be used with great caution and that the Scottish statistics in the Report of the Royal Commission, given on page 306, are not as detailed as those for England. Therefore it is not possible to tell from them whether there have been convictions in Scotland for the murder of police officers or for the murder of prison officers. I want to know from the Lord Advocate, and he ought to tell us, whether the absence of this information from the Scottish total is merely due to inadequate information or whether there have been over the last fifty years in Scotland convictions for such murders. It is important to know that, if we are to change the law of Scotland in this respect.
May I also submit that if the number of convictions for murder over fifty years is thirteen, and presumably only a small number of those suffered the death penalty, what will happen in practice in Scotland if the Bill goes through is that the death penalty will be abolished over a much wider area than in England. This, of course, is something which will be met with satisfaction by those of us in the Committee who dislike the death penalty


on principle. If this is so—and we must have the figures—surely it strengthens our case. Surely, if we are going quite a long way to abolishing the death penalty in Scotland in the Government Bill, and given the Scottish conditions, it strengthens the case for the Secretary of State for Scotland taking his courage in his hands and saying, "We will abolish the death penalty altogether in Scotland."
It is impossible for this Committee and the Scottish Members of the House of Commons to take a decision on this crucial issue—one that stirs men's consciences much more than most issues in recent years—without having much more adequate information from the Lord Advocate on the Scottish aspects of this matter. I think that we should insist in this Committee that we get a much more adequate answer from the Lord Advocate.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: In the exchange of argument, it seems to me that there is a very substantial adverse balance of trade hanging against the Government at the moment. There is one argument which causes a certain amount of grave doubt in the minds of many Scottish Members which has not been answered by anyone on the Government Front Bench, and on which I think we are entitled to an answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) asked if it were not the case that not only were we simply remaining unimproved in the Bill in relation to Scotland, but that we were actually suffering adversely from the change in the Bill. Is that true? Is this a sound argument that Scotland is actually, by pinpointing capital offences in the manner in which it does specifically in Clause 5, being adversely affected by this Bill? I think that we are entitled not only to have an answer on this matter, but a clear explanation of it.
We are accustomed to getting clear explanations, however infrequently, from time to time on various issues. I plead with the Lord Advocate that on this matter—and even by courtesy we have not heard a word—we are entitled to know our position and whether Scotland is getting a raw deal by the Bill, even if we are not actually getting an improvement.

The Lord Advocate: Perhaps I can help the Committee on two points. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked whether the position in Scotland vis-à-vis murder was being adversely affected by the Bill. The Committee will note that Clause 5, which is perhaps the most important Clause of the Bill, merely states that certain crimes, if they are murder, will be treated as capital murder. It will be necessary, of course, in each case to satisfy a jury that it is murder at all. It will be perfectly open for a jury in Scotland, in certain circumstances, to bring in a verdict of culpable homicide. It does not say that these crimes, which perhaps in certain circumstances would not be murder before, should be murder now. All that the Bill says is that if murder is committed in these circumstances, then the capital penalty will attach.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) asked whether or not there had been any case of what might in Scotland in future, be capital murder under Clause 5 (1, e). That is the prison warder section. As at present advised. I think that the answer is that in the last 50 years, there has been none.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I listened to the Lord Advocate more in sorrow than in anger, because I remember the long arguments we had in getting him into the House of Commons. I think with sorrow of the very large number of questions which I used to put to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) when he was Prime Minister, asking when the Solicitor-General for Scotland would he able to come into this House in order that we could hear him. Now that he has arrived, and now that he has attained the post of Lord Advocate, I begin to wonder whether my energies were really wisely directed. He has only said just enough to whet our appetites for more. I am sure that the English Members, especially the English legal Members of this Committee, were very interested in what he said about culpable homicide. But why is it that Scottish juries return this verdict of culpable homicide? It is because they object to the penalty for murder.
That throws a very great light on the argument for and against this particular Amendment. That is why Craigie Aitchison, the famous criminal advocate


in Scotland, was so successful. Craigie Aitchison was nearly always successful in getting the charge of murder reduced to one of culpable homicide. Scottish juries seize upon culpable homicide as a way to avoid what they consider the barbarity of the death penalty. Now the Lord Advocate has given us a little information about the number of officers who have been murdered in Scottish prisons. In the last fifty years, there has been none. Can he now tell us not only about the prison officers but about the other people?
Why was the law of capital punishment in Scotland practically put into storage for a period of eighteen years? That is because there is something in the law of Scotland that is rather distinct. We have had a good deal of argument on the Scottish section of the Bill in which various hon. and learned Members have gone into great detail about specific cases which they have used for the sake of argument. I wonder if the Lord Advocate would explain, for the benefit of English Members of this Committee, all the various legal matters connected with the famous case of Oscar Slater. [Laughter.] The Secretary of State for Scotland may laugh about it, but it was no laughing matter for Oscar Slater, because he was wrongfully convicted of murder. It was reduced, and he was reprieved and stayed in Scottish prisons for many years. Then along came an enlightened advocate called Craigie Aitchison, who showed the injustice that might result. It was only by accident that Oscar Slater was not hanged.
I should very much like the Lord Advocate to give his opinion on these matters. We know that the last Secretary of State for Scotland was an enlightened Secretary of State so far as the granting of reprieves was concerned. I refer to the case of the man Gordon, who was convicted of murder in very sordid circumstances in Glasgow. I do not think that if that case had occurred in England that Gordon would have been reprieved. I say this for the former Secretary of State for Scotland that, in this particular case, he acted very humanely and in a very enlightened way. I should like this enlightenment which has been shown by various Secretaries of State for Scotland and various Lord Advocates to find its reflection in the Committee tonight by the Lord Advocate and the

Secretary of State accepting our Amendment.

Mr. Lawson: I think that the only point which the Lord Advocate attempted to answer was the one which I raised. I must confess that I could not find an answer to that point in what he said. In fact. this Bill worsens the position so far as Scotland is concerned. We find Scotland worse off even when the Bill is passed than it is at the present time.
Part I of the Bill gives nothing to Scotland; presumably Scotland does not need anything in respect of its law of murder. Scotland is however, limited by Part II of the Bill, whereas at present she is not so limited. I submit that the very limitation that we find imposed in Part II of the Bill alters the law of murder for Scotland. At present there is in Scotland a very great deal of scope which does not exist in England.
Part I greatly widens the scope for England, but Scotland has no such need. Nevertheless. Part II of the Bill says, in effect, to Scotland "Here you must toe the English line." It means that the discretion given to judges and juries in Scotland and the possibilities of leniency in Scotland are to be removed. Scottish juries and judges are, in effect, being told "Since the practice in England is this, we shall expect you to conform with that". It is in those respects that the Scottish law is altered and the position is worsened, it being less humane than hitherto. Unless the Lord Advocate can demonstrate otherwise, it appears that the Bill, although it may benefit England, does not benefit Scotland and, in fact, leaves Scotland worse off than before.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

Mr. G. M. Thomson: On a point of order, Sir Norman. When putting the Question, you said "I think the Ayes have it." My hon. Friends and I said "Aye", and we have no recollection of hearing "No" from the other side of the Committee.

The Temporary-Chairman: I was collecting the voices.

Mr. Thomson: But you declared that the "Ayes" had it, Sir Norman, and my


hon. Friends and I have no recollection of having heard any hon. Member opposite dissent from that.

The Temporary-Chairman: What I said was "I think the Ayes have it."

Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order, Sir Norman. I understood you to say you thought the "Ayes" had it, and we heard no opposition to that. My hon. Friends and I represent the "Ayes." If you said you thought the "Ayes" had it, presumably nobody said anything to the contrary. In that case, presumably, the "Ayes" had it, and the Amendment should have been carried without a Division.

The Temporary-Chairman: In my opinion, what I said was "I think the Ayes have it."

Mr. Lawson: As my hon. Friends and I said "Aye" and no one said "No", does not that mean that the Ayes had it?

The Committee proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Lawson: (seated and covered): You have not answered my question, Sir Norman. You said that the "Ayes" had it, and surely that should be the position.

The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 164.

Division No. 47.]
AYES
[8.23 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holman, P.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holt, A. F.
Probert, A. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Randall, H. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Reeves, J.


Boardman, H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Ross, William


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Royle, C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S)
Short, E. W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Callaghan, L. J.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Champion, A. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chapman, W. D.
King, Dr. H. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Coldrick, W.
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lindgren, G. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lipton, Marcus
Sparks, J. A.


Cove, W. G.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McInnes, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Cronin, J. D.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, S. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, G.
Mason, Roy
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (w. Brmwch)
Monslow, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dye, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Ward, D. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mort, D. L.
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Fernyhough, E.




Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Gibson, C. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W.T. (Barons Court)


Greenwood, Anthony
Owen, W. J.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Woof, R. E.


Grimond, J.
Paget, R. T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.



Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, S.
Pearson, A.
Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Holmes.


Hayman, F. H.
Peart, T. F.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Brooman-White, R. C.


Altken, W. T.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bryan, P.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Burden, F. F. A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bishop, F. P.
Channon, Sir Henry


Armstrong, C. W.
Black, C. W.
Chichester-Clark, R.


Ashton, H.
Body, R. F.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Atkins, H. E.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Barber, Anthony
Boyle, Sir Edward
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Barter, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)




Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rawlinson, Peter


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Redmayne, M.


Cunningham, Knox
Kerr, H. W.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kimball, M.
Renton, D. L. M.


Dance, J. C. G.
Leather, E. H. C.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Davies, Rt.Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Leavey, J. A.
Rippon, A. G. F.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Leburn, W. G.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duthie, W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Shepherd, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Longden, Gilbert
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fell, A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maddan, Martin
Storey, S.


Godber, J. B.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gower, H. R.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Summers, Sir Spencer


Graham, Sir Fergus
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Temple, J. M.


Green, A.




Gresham Cooke, R.
Mathew, R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mawby, R. L.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gurden, Harold
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nairn, D. L. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Neave, Airey
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hesketh, R. F.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Oakshott, H. D.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Hope, Lord John
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hornby, R. P.
Page, R. G.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Howard, John (Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pitman, I. J.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hurd, A. R.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pott, H. P.



Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Mr. Hughes-Young.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ramsden, J. E.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I had put down an Amendment, which was not selected, which dealt with the law of provocation as it applied to Scotland. The effect of the Amendment would have been to make Clause 3 applicable to Scotland. We ought to have some explanation from the Lord Advocate, because I am confident that a point of law is involved. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Royal Commission said that this change, which is to be made in the law for England and Wales, should also have been made for Scotland. The Royal Commission said that the law of provocation in Scotland was substantially the same as that in England, although expressed in somewhat different language.
The Commission went on to say:
In Scotland, as in England, provocation may take various forms, but its scope is, at least in theory, somewhat narrower.

If it was desirable to change the law in England and Wales, it was desirable to change the law in Scotland as well. That was the opinion of the Commission, which said in paragraph 153 of its Report:
We consider it important that the principles we have enunciated should apply equally on both sides of the Border and we therefore recommend that any legislation which may be introduced in England should apply also to Scotland, in order that the position in Scotland may he rendered entirely free from doubt.
Why have the Scottish Law Officers decided to do nothing about that? I asked about this matter at the beginning of 1955, when I was informed by the Secretary of State for Scotland that this matter was under consideration. It appears that in Scotland there is still considerable dubiety about the extent of the law of provocation and its interpretation.
In the Royal Commission's Report we are told that among those recommending the change in the law made by Clause 3 was the Faculty of Advocates. I have


consulted members of the Faculty of Advocates in the last few weeks and all of those whom I consulted thought that the Clause should apply to Scotland. When members of the Faculty gave evidence before the Royal Commission, they apparently thought that the position in Scotland should be made perfectly clear.
In the course of these debates we have heard much about how far we are in advance of England and Wales. In many respects that position will be the same even after the Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. S. Silverman: That will not be difficult.

Mr. Willis: That may be so.
Unfortunately we are copying the follies of England in accepting Part II of the Bill. Why, then, should we not accept Clause 3, which seems to be beneficial for England? The position in Scotland in this respect appears to be the same as that in England; therefore, the improvements made in the law ought to be extended to Scotland. We should have some explanation of this from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ross: I also hope that we shall have an explanation why the Clause should not be enacted for Scotland, and why the limitations on capital punishment should be so drawn. With all the oratory that has been in the air. I was reminded of Burns trying to horrify the people with what Tarn O'Shanter saw on the holy table. Not one of the things he saw could concern a capital murder. He saw
Five tomahawks, wi' blude red crusted;
Five scymitars, wi' murder crusted;
A garter, which a babe had strangled;
A knife, a father's throat had mangled.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—

Mr. Ross: I know what my hon. Friend is going to remind me of. I will allow him to do it.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is referring to lines which Robert Burns wrote but did not publish. He refused to publish them out of respect for hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Ross: I was confining my remarks to those which are relevant to the Bill. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of

State or the Lord Advocate will give us an adequate explanation for the Clause as it stands and why the Government have decided as they have done about these crimes. I remember that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) thought that capital punishment should be limited to murders committed by normal people.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I do not often remember my speeches in detail, but in that case I think I was trying to define a "reasonable man". That is what we are discussing. I remember saying that I wondered how many of us were reasonable, even in the House, sometimes.

Mr. Ross: I remember that last part very well. I looked up her speech about half an hour ago. The hon. Lady gave her definition and then expressed doubts whether a reasonable man could properly be defined by anyone. I am sure that she cannot possibly be satisfied that this proposal is adequate, logical or even just.
Another Scottish Member thought that capital punishment should be retained for particularly brutal crimes. Surely that case is not met by the list we have here. It is essential that the Lord Advocate should satisfy the people of Scotland of the logic of what he is doing, and should show that there is justice as between one malefactor and another. I find it very difficult to justify what he proposes to do. It seems that someone has made a decision quite outwith the Scottish Office. It has taken more pains about what it was going to say than what it was going to do.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I hope that the Secretary of State, or more particularly the Lord Advocate, will take the opportunity of the discussion on this Clause to make the Government's case for applying this Measure to Scotland. It is true that the Clause itself deals simply with the extension to Scotland of something that is included earlier in the Bill, but, of course, this is the opportunity for Scottish hon. Members to discuss the very important change in the Scottish law.
When the earlier section of the Bill was being discussed in this Committee, it would not have been very proper for Scottish hon. Members to intervene in those discussions and take time from their English colleagues, for whom these


matters were perhaps of even greater importance than they were for Scotland, since the changes that do take place under this Bill have a greater application to England than they have to Scotland. Even if it had been proper for us to speak at that stage, it would have been rather futile, because at that stage the Government's case was being made for England and Wales by the learned Attorney-General. This is really the Scottish part of this Committee stage of this very important Bill.
I think we are entitled to have, and Scotland is entitled to have, from the Government some case made why these particular changes should be made in the law relating to murder and in the penalty for murder as it relates to Scotland. I suggested earlier, and I do so again now, that we really ought to have from the Government some indication of what this Bill is going to mean in terms of Scottish criminal statistics.
Could the learned Lord Advocate tell us, for instance, taking the figure for the number of executions for murder in Scotland over the last 50 years as that given by the Royal Commission, by how much that figure of executions would have been reduced if these present proposals had in fact been operated? Could he give us some idea of the actual scope of this Bill once it has been given legislative effect? Could he tell us—of course this can only be an estimate—from his great legal experience how many executions there are likely to be in Scotland in future in the light of these provisions, and how many extra reprieves, on the basis of the present figures? Can he give us some idea of what this will mean in Scotland in terms of a reduction in the number of executions that take place?
My own feeling is that the number of executions which have taken place in Scotland over the last 50 years is in fact very small. The number of convictions for murder in Scotland over the last 50 years is, I think, only 59, which is a remarkably small figure, considering that we have seen great changes in the public outlook on criminal matters, and out of those 59, substantially less than half the men concerned have been executed—only 23. The scope for a reduction in Scotland therefore is quite limited. I myself and my hon. Friends here are glad to see it further limited in this Bill, as far as the

Bill itself goes, but we object in principle to the capital penalty and our case is this.
Since the number of executions that are likely to take place in Scotland in future will be so very limited, surely, in view of the very strong feelings held by so many people in Scotland, there is a case for Scotland going a little distance further. We cannot tell exactly what the distance is. We cannot tell exactly the extent of the step forward which we have been pressing on the Government, and before we part with this Clause I think that we are entitled to have a case made by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Government and to know exactly where we stand.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am glad to see the Prime Minister has arrived in the Chamber to take an interest in our deliberations. We are discussing how far this Bill affects Scotland and, with his Scottish ancestry, I am sure that the Prime Minister has made a special visit to hear, with an impartial mind, the case for and against this Clause, and why we think that Scotland should receive different treatment from England.
The law of Scotland, as has been the case for hundreds of years, is very different from the law of England. Indeed, in Scotland they do not pronounce the word "law" in the same way. The Lord Advocate, who speaks English better than the average barrister in England, does not use the Scottish pronunciation, and this is a case where there has been an inverse pronunciation. It is the English barristers who use the Scottish pronunciation; but that is only an aside to show that legal matters in Scotland are carried out in a different way although the crimes are essentially the same. But the way of looking at things in Scotland and the law regarding Scottish jurisprudence is extremely complicated for the average hon. Member who comes from south of the Border to understand.
Now that the Prime Minister is present, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland is conveying to him what has been repeatedly said in this Committee; that this is essentially a Scottish matter and should be discussed by the Scottish Standing Committee, by hon. Members who understand exactly and in


the utmost detail how the law stands. Once again Scottish Members have a grievance. We have frequently found, when discussing Scottish legislation, that Scottish Members who understand and are interested in these matters state their case moderately and reasonably, and are then voted down by English Members who do not understand what it is about.

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend must not overstate his case. This is no special injustice to Scotland. I can assure him that when we are debating the application of this Bill to England it is equally true that reasonable arguments advanced by English Members are often voted down, not merely by English Members but by Scottish Members too.

Mr. Ede: And worse than that is when both are voted down by Ulster Unionists.

Mr. Ross: Perhaps my hon. Friend will now speak as a Welshman.

Mr. Hughes: When my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was speaking, I noticed that he drove the Prime Minister out of the Chamber. That was unfortunate, because I thought I was beginning to make some impression upon the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister are now behind the Speaker's Chair discussing the possibility of getting this Clause off the Floor of the House and referring it to the Scottish Grand Committee, which is the right place for a discussion of what is essentially Scottish legislation. I am sure, Sir Gordon, that you would be relieved if the Secretary of State for Scotland came back and said that as a result of his discussion with the Prime Minister they had reached what would be a very wise decision.
When you were not in the Chair, Sir Gordon, we pointed out that there are considerable differences in Scotland and that for eighteen years, to my knowledge, no executions took place in Scotland. I remember that after this long time came the case of the hanging of a woman. The Lord Advocate will remember that when the arrangements for the hanging of this woman came to be considered, the person looking after the arrangements in Glasgow wrote a special letter to his superior asking that the various contrivances used for the hanging of Mrs. Thompson should

be taken specially to Scotland because they did not have these things there. They did not even have a competent hangman in Scotland.
I suggest that it is unfair for Scotland to be lumped with England in this respect. The outlook in Scotland upon murder and other serious crime is more akin to the outlook in the Scandinavian countries than to that in this Anglo-Saxon portion of Britain. I can quite understand that the Lord Advocate does not want the Bill discussed by the Scottish Grand Committee because there we should subject it to a meticulous, reasonable examination—

Mr. Willis: And expose it.

Mr. Hughes: —in the light of the conditions in Scotland, where executions did not take place for eighteen years and where we had a very great lead given in legal reform by the former Lord Advocate, Lord Aitchison.
I stress this because the outlook is different. The average Scottish advocate, if I may be allowed to say so, is more enlightened than his counterpart in England. I am quite sure that the Lord Advocate will agree with me on that.

Mr. Ede: The Joint Under-Secretary of State will not.

Mr. Hughes: I suggest that we are not here arguing some small, finicky legal point. We are asking that this part of the Bill should be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. After all, the complicated parts of other Bills that come before the House and which have a Scottish application automatically come before the Scottish Grand Committee. We discuss our rents, our rates and our drugs. I am sure that if we need to have a special drug Act for Scotland and special Measures for dealing with Scottish agriculture, local government and education there is a reasonable case why this part of the Bill, which specifically affects Scotland, should be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.
I am quite sure that if the position were reversed and if Scottish Members were trying to impose their will upon England, there would be an immediate revolt by the English Members. Therefore, I ask the Lord Advocate to take an enlightened view. Let him go down in history as the great Conservative penal


reformer as far as Scotland is concerned. Do not let the Labour Party have the monopoly in legal reformers in the person of Lord Aitchison.
I should very much like the Lord Advocate to deal in detail with subsection (3) of this Clause, which says:
Subsection (1) of this section does not affect courts-martial.
The only time I have been remotely in danger of capital punishment was when before a court-martial. I have never complained of the civil courts and have never been in danger from the civil courts, but I am very suspicious when I see the words "courts-martial". When I see that:
Subsection (1) of this section does not affect courts-martial.
I want to know why. I hope the Lord Advocate will deal with that and show that there is no need for alarm.
I am glad to see reinforcements arriving in the person of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. We are always very pleased to see him and regard very highly the advice he gives us. I may be able to convert him to this idea and he will be able to assist the Lord Advocate in making legal history on the question of murder in Scotland. The Solicitor-General for Scotland took a very prominent part in the last piece of contentious legislation which was before the Scottish Grand Committee. He will remember the arguments we had about the appointment of valuation committees. The question of life and death is far more important than who is to appoint an assessor for valuation in Scotland. We were allowed to discuss that and have been allowed to discuss the whole ramifications of education and local government in the Scottish Committee, but on murder, which has a long legal history in Scotland, the House of Commons says we are to be content with a very short interlude in the discussion of that crime in this Committee.
We do not say that English hon. Members should be excluded from the Scottish Grand Committee, where they could put the English point of view. I am sure there is not a Scottish hon. Member who would object if this Clause were referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. We would be very glad to have my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West

(Mr. Hale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to help us to speed our deliberations on that Committee and to give us the benefit of their advice. Now that the Solicitor-General has come in, I ask him to have a word with the Lord Advocate and to impress on him that we are not only putting the point of view of Scottish hon. Members but also of the Faculty of Advocates. I am sure the overwhelming majority of hon. and learned Members who are members of the Faculty of Advocates see the logic of our case.
I hope that the Lord Advocate is not going to approach this question with the sort of closed mind which has been in evidence throughout the deliberations of this Committee, but will agree that this Amendment which has been put reasonably and moderately by hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. It has the overwhelming majority of public opinion in Scotland behind it and the overwhelming majority of Scottish legal opinion behind it. We are stating the case reasonably.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) ended with a request for the Committee to accept an Amendment, but I understood that we were discussing whether this Clause should stand part of the Bill. Nevertheless, I will attempt to meet the question which he asked about subsection (3). The hon. Member asked me to explain why Clause 13 (3) is necessary. That subsection says:
Subsection (1) of this section does not affect courts-martial.
The reason for subsection (3) is to be quite sure that subsection (1), which says that certain parts of the Measure shall not extend to Scotland, shall not be effective in the case of courts-martial.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why subsection (1) should not affect courts-martial in Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: The reason is that the law of courts-martial is the criminal law of England. It is in order to make it clear that a court-martial in Scotland shall proceed in accordance with the present law of courts-martial and shall not be affected by Clause 13 (1),


which might have been taken to have raised doubts on whether it extended to Scotland or not, that this provision is made.

Mr. Ede: Does that mean that the law of Scotland will not apply to courts-martial in Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: Yes. It never has applied. The law of Scotland does not apply to courts-martial in Scotland. The Committee will remember that this is a matter which we discussed on the Army Bill, now the Army Act, about two years ago.

Mr. S. Silverman: I know nothing whatever about the law of Scotland, I must confess at once, and certainly I have no precise recollection of any discussions which the House may have had about the Army Act, but I am a little alarmed to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that if a court-martial takes place in Scotland it is not governed by the law of Scotland. Why should it not be? Surely this is a situation about which a great many English hon. Members will hear with great surprise. While I am on my feet, perhaps it may be worth while to ask, in regard to subsection (1), why Part I and Part III of the Bill should not extend to Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: The law of courts-martial has never been the law of Scotland. It has always been the law of England. That has been discussed on many occasions.

Mr. Silverman: Even when the court-martial takes place in Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: Yes.
I do not think this is an appropriate moment to discuss whether or not it is desirable that the court-martial law should be the law of England or the law of Scotland. The fact remains that it has been the law of England, and that is why we have subsection (3) in this Clause.

Mr. Ross: But the right hon. and learned Gentleman should add that when we discussed the matter, some of us on this side of the Committee tried to change the position, but he insisted that this nefarious practice should continue.

The Lord Advocate: I fully appreciate that when the Army Act was being discussed many hon, Members opposite

raised certain points in connection with court-martial law, but I do not think we had a sweeping debate on whether the law of England in all respects should be removed from court-martial law.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Willis rose—

The Lord Advocate: I cannot give way again.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) asked whether we could help the Committee with any statistics from Scotland for the particular offences mentioned in Clause 5 (1). I cannot be certain that these figures are correct, because it depends on the years which one takes, but my information is that the total number of sentences of death for all murders in Scotland from 1900 to 1955 was 77. The number of murders of the type referred to in Clause 5 (1, a) to 5 (1, e) inclusive for those years would probably be 17. It is difficult to be categorical about that because, as the Committee knows, certain considerations are involved, but the figure is approximately 17. Of those 17, eight were executed, eight were reprieved and one of the convictions was quashed. Those are approximate figures for the years 1900–55. I cannot give the Committee the exact number, but those are the approximate numbers.

Mr. Ross: That is 8 in 55 years?

The Lord Advocate: That is eight executions for that particular series. Taken over the whole field, there were 31 executions.

Mr. Silverman: Over what period?

The Lord Advocate: From 1900 to 1955—in Scotland. Of course, we are now talking about Scotland alone.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, and I am also grateful to him for having given us these figures, which were what we sought and which are helpful to us. If I may say so, they appear to strengthen my point. If the changes made by this Bill mean, in fact, that only eight executions would have taken place over the last 55 years, surely it is a very modest step forward in Scotland to abolish the death penalty completely—such a modest step that even


the Government, with their doubts about it, might experiment in Scotland with the abolition of the death penalty.

The Lord Advocate: I do not want to traverse again the arguments traversed for several days in Committee, but the mere fact that during the years 1900 to 1955 only eight executions took place in respect of these particular offences does not, in my submission, in any way necessarily mean that if there was not the deterrent effect of capital punishment in the background the number might not have been much larger. I know that it is arguable, but I cannot accept that.

Mr. Silverman: Would the Lord Advocate say what his argument would have been about the virtue of the death penalty and the necessity to retain it if, over 55 years, instead of finding it necessary to execute eight people it had been found necessary to execute eighty? Would he have regarded that as an argument for the abolition of the death penalty?

The Lord Advocate: No, I do not think, Sir Gordon, that it would be an argument for abolition.

Mr. Silverman: Then the Lord Advocate wants it both ways.

The Lord Advocate: One has to look at the figures in the light of the circumstances existing at the date to which those figures apply.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked for an adequate explanation of Clause 5. As I said in connection with an Amendment which the Committee was discussing a few minutes ago, Clause 5 merely states the punishment for certain murders; that is, provided that it is established that the crime is murder. This Bill does not make any of these particular offences murder; it only says that, if the offence is murder the penalty will be capital. That is all that it does. It does not alter the law of murder.
The hon. Member asked, in effect I think, how these cases would be divided up, and whether they were important from the Scottish point of view. I gave the figure of 17 a moment ago to the hon. Member for Dundee, East. Let me try to break down that figure. Again, this can only be approximate, because it is difficult to be certain whether the various

factors necessary for the particular paragraph would have been established. The figures are: —paragraph (a), 12; (b), 2; (a) and (b), 1—that is the same offence; (b) and (c), 1; (b) and (d), 1. The Committee will see, of course, that most come under Clause 5 (1, a).
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked about provocation. Naturally, in view of what the Royal Commission said, and in view of the questions which we were asked about it, we considered this question very carefully indeed. However, the Committee will note that paragraph 132 of the Report says:
Lord Cooper, however, expressed the view that, although the Holmes decision"—
that was the decision that caused difficulty in England—
would be treated with respect in a Scottish court, it would not necessarily be followed, and he was inclined to think that in a Scottish court that case would have gone to the jury with a direction that the verdict should be one of culpable homicide.
In other words, the courts in Scotland, following previous Scottish practice and Scottish decisions, would have said, "Our hands are not tied so much as they are in England." There is another aspect—

Mr. Willis: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, may I put this observation to him? Surely the part of the sentence
it would not necessarily be followed
is open to two interpretations. I should have thought that it is just as likely to lead to ambiguity as to certainty. It is precisely because of the ambiguous nature of the law of provocation that we want it clarified.

The Lord Advocate: The law of Scotland so far as criminal matters are concerned is practically entirely the common law. We have seen very often, in admiring and in criticising English law, how English law is very much tied up by Statute. The law of Scotland is flexible. One of the things that we are afraid of is this. If we introduce into the law of Scotland a statutory defence of provocation with the use of words it might be said that a judge, in circumstances in which he felt there was an opportunity for a verdict of culpable homicide rather than a verdict of murder, but there did not exist either provocation by words or


provocation by actions, would be bound to withdraw the possibility of culpable homicide from the jury.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. and learned Gentleman. No doubt, my question is based on what I confess to be my complete ignorance of the law of Scotland, but I am bound to say that I have been a little disturbed by what the Lord Advocate has just said, and he may be able to clear up the doubts that his words have inspired in me.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said—and naturally one accepts it from him without question—that the law on this subject in Scotland is the common law and he does not want it altered by statutory amendments to the English law being applied to Scotland because it might militate against the operation of the law as it is in Scotland based on the common law. But this decision in the House of Lords about the effect of the use of words with regard to reducing, in our language in England, a charge of murder to a charge of manslaughter, is itself a decision in the common law. It is not based, as I understand it, on any Statute applicable in England or in Scotland.
If that is so, I find it a little difficult to follow why Lord Cooper should have told the Royal Commission that that decision, being a decision of the House of Lords, would not necessarily have been followed in Scotland. If there had been some statutory difference, I could have followed the argument, but if the Lord Advocate says, as he has said, that the law in Scotland is the common law, and since the decision in the House of Lords is plainly declaratory of the common law, I cannot understand why Lord Cooper should say that that decision would not be followed in Scotland.
In any case, since Lord Cooper only said that it would not necessarily be followed, he left the door open to the interpretation that it might be followed; and since we are no longer to apply it in England by reason of the Bill that the Government have brought to the House of Commons, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why we should not make assurance really sure by making certain that the doctrine, which he says in any case may have been

applicable in Scotland but which is not applicable in England only because of the House of Lords decision, which we are now altering by Statute, should not apply, and why he does not want that additional protection to apply in Scotland likewise?

9.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: As I say, the common law of Scotland is extremely flexible. There is nothing that I have been able to find which would indicate that a judge in Scotland would be precluded from leaving provocation by words to a jury.
It has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that, because of the English case of Holmes, some doubt might be created in Scotland. I must reject that suggestion. No criminal case in Scotland can go to the House of Lords, and no House of Lords case in the criminal sphere is binding on the Scottish courts, though any such case would certainly be treated with great respect. Even in the case of Holmes, that decision itself is not absolute; as I remember them, the words are
in the most exceptional circumstances
or an expression to that effect.
I invite the Committee to allow the law of Scotland to preserve itself as common law as we have had it all these years, avoiding, unless we were absolutely driven to it, setting it out in statutes and thereby tying the judges' hands and limiting their discretion. It would, I think, be more humane to leave it as it is, leaving it to the judge in circumstances where, for example, provocation was caused by seeing something. It is quite conceivable that a person might lose all reason by seeing something. It is quite possible, I am satisfied, that, if that were the situation in Scotland, the judge would leave the question of culpable homicide to the jury.
I now invite the Committee to accept this Clause.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am bound to say, speaking as a mere Sassenach, that the Lord Advocate's argument leaves me completely unsatisfied. I hope I may have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention; I am hoping to address to him an argument which I at any rate, think is a sound one, explaining why I do


not consider what he has said is in the least satisfactory.
I take it that there is a certain amount of common ground between us. I take it that he agrees that the English decision in Holmes that the question whether provocation by words alone might, in a suitable case, be sufficient to reduce the charge of murder to a charge of manslaughter was not a fit question to be left to the jury is a decision which ought not in our deliberations to stand. One concedes at once that in many cases provocation by words alone might indeed be insufficient to reduce the charge. It is equally certain that in other cases provocation by words alone might well be sufficient to reduce the charge.
The effect of the decision in Holmes, to which the Lord Advocate referred, was that in England—never mind for the moment whether it applies to Scotland or not—it was wrong for a judge to leave to the jury any question of reduction of a charge of murder to manslaughter on the ground of provocation where the provocation alleged was a provocation only by words. This is nothing to do with sight, nothing to do with any other surrounding circumstances.
There is a definite decision of the House of Lords that where the provocation alleged is provocation by words alone, it is not right to leave to the jury whether in that case the provocation was sufficient to reduce a charge of murder to a charge of manslaughter with the result that a charge of murder must be sustained. It is exactly that which the Government are inviting this Committee to change so far as England is concerned. We all agree with that.
Now there is this Clause in the Bill which provides that this change in the law shall not apply to Scotland and my Scottish hon. Friends are asking the Lord Advocate why? In reply the Lord Advocate has said only this, that since it is doubtful whether that decision in the House of Lords will be followed in Scotland, it is not certain that this Amendment of the law is necessary in Scotland.
Suppose we concede to the Lord Advocate the validity of that argument. Supposing he has established, as he may well have established, that perhaps this alteration in the English law will not be necessary in Scotland. Why is that a

reason for not making absolutely certain? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted that Lord Cooper's evidence to the Royal Commission was equivocal. Lord Cooper did not say that this decision would not be followed in Scotland; he only said that it might not necessarily be followed in Scotland.
Supposing it was followed. Supposing there was a case in Scotland, this Bill having gone through unamended, where Scottish courts decided that they could not leave the question of culpable homicide to a Scottish jury because this Clause had been specifically excepted from applying to Scotland. Would the Lord Advocate be satisfied with that? Of course he would not. The whole tenor of his argument is that this Amendment in the law of England is a right and proper thing to do.
If the Lord Advocate was able to say that the position in Scotland was quite certainly different, so as to make a corresponding amendment of the law of Scotland unnecessary, one could follow his argument, but he did not say that. The Lord Advocate wants to leave the doubt. Why leave a doubt? If this is what he wants to do, do it. What is he afraid of? Why should it not apply? I really cannot follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
Before I sit down I want to say a word upon another matter; to say how astonished I was at the complacency about courts-martial. I am not a Scot and therefore, obviously, not a Scottish Nationalist, but I cannot understand how any Scottish Member of this House, certainly a Law Officer representing Scotland here in this Committee, can be satisfied with a position in which there could be on Scottish soil a court-martial where the question in issue was whether a man was guilty of murder or not, whether a man should suffer the death penalty or not, where although the inquiry was taking place in Scotland, and although ex hypothesi one must assume that the offence was committed in Scotland, the rights of the accused should not be governed by the law of Scotland.
It is not true in Germany. When a British soldier was tried for a murder committed in Germany, and tried by a British court-martial, he was indeed


sentenced to death by the British court-martial. But the sentence was commuted. Why was the sentence commuted? Because in Germany—a country which we have not been accustomed to regard during the past twenty years as being a more civilised country than our own—there is no death penalty, and because by agreement between the German Federal Government and our own we are not entitled with regard to our own British citizens, tried by our own British courts-martial, to inflict any penalty greater than would be inflicted by a German court in the like circumstances.
The Lord Advocate astonishes me. He wants Germany to have more rights in this matter than Scotland. It is impossible to understand why. He refers to discussions in the Army. It may well be that Parliament has considered the matter before. It may well be that Parliament came to the wrong decision before. Is that any reason why it should come to the wrong decision now or persist in the wrong decision? There is the controversial problem of non-proven. There is a great deal of opinion on whether that is a great advantage to the accused or not. But in Scotland, people are very proud of that opportunity.
According to what the Lord Advocate says, although we might have the advantage of such a verdict in a civil court, in a criminal case tried under the civil law of Scotland, although the crime was committed in Scotland and the trial took place in Scotland, provided it is a court-martial, the English law shall apply. It is astonishing that any Scottish advocate could be content with a position of that kind, absolutely astonishing and completely unexplained.
There is in Scotland a jury of fifteen against our jury of twelve, and the system of majority verdicts as well as the system of the not proven verdict. If representatives of Scotland here are content to say, "We abandon all that; we are no longer satisfied that the Scottish differences ought to be maintained; we are prepared to assimilate our law to the law of England," I could understand that, although I doubt whether any Scottish Member would be prepared to vote for such a proposition. What I cannot understand is that the Lord Advocate should be content with a position in

which the differences are maintained in Scotland provided the court is a civil court, and although in every other respect the offences are the same, the law shall be assimilated to England if the court which tries the offence is a military court instead of a civil one. The situation discussed by the Lord Advocate is anomalous and unmaintainable, and I suppose that the only defence for it is that in all these respects it is exactly of a piece with anything else in this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(AMENDMENT AS TO PENALTY FOR CERTAIN ATTEMPTS TO MURDER.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, to leave out from "subjects)," to the end of line 29 and insert "is hereby repealed".
The point is a comparatively simple one. The Amendment seeks to repeal the Criminal Law (Scotland) Act, 1829, and it does so for the reason that, as I understand the position, this Act is, in fact, obsolete in any case. [Interruption.] That is what I am told on good legal advice. The purpose of the Act is to make punishable by death certain crimes of violence against Her Majesty's subjects, and I am given to understand, once again on legal advice—and apparently my legal advice is different from that of hon. Gentlemen opposite—that all the offences under this Act can, in point of fact, be dealt with under common law procedure and, therefore, there is no reason at all why the Act should be continued.
Why are we cluttering up the Statute Book with Acts which no longer have any relevance to our proceedings today? I might say, Sir Gordon, that this Amendment goes along with the Amendment to the Second Schedule which also stands in my name, and which seeks to do the same thing.

The Lord Advocate: I quite agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh. East (Mr. Willis) that this is an Act which is seldom used, but it is not in desuetude at all. It was used in the 1930's—I forget the exact date—but it is wrong to think, and I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think, that this Act creates offences. It did impose the very serious penalty of


death for those who were convicted of offences which were common law offences. It is purely an act for penalties.
I think that the Committee and the House of Commons should think very hard before they reduce a penalty in connection with the very serious offences of attempted murder, maiming, disfiguring, disabling and throwing sulphuric acid and the like to make a radical alteration in that sentence in conformity with the general purposes of the Bill. The death sentence is being replaced in the Bill in its present form by sentence of life imprisonment, but the present Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of removing, as it were, from the very serious offences a special penalty of their own, namely, life imprisonment. I advise the Committee to leave the Act on the Statute Book, amended as it is amended in terms of Clause 14, and not to remove it from the Statute Book altogether.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the Lord Advocate tell us whether there is any comparable law in England and Wales which allows a sentence of life imprisonment to be passed for similar crimes? If there is, his case stands, but if there is not, I submit that his case falls. The case for the Bill has been argued from the Government benches this evening as being that there ought to be uniformity. I should be interested to know the position in England and Wales.

Mr. Willis: Can these penalties be given under common law? Is the specific authority of this statute required to be able to impose the penalty of life imprisonment for throwing sulphuric acid, for example?

The Lord Advocate: The answer to the last question is "No". Life imprisonment could be given without that Act, but if the Act remains in its present form it makes it obligatory upon the court to pass that sentence if the prosecution is taken under the Act. The prosecution would not be taken under that Act except in very extreme circumstances.

Mr. S. Silverman: I cannot follow this. We are all responsible for what the House of Commons does whether it affects our part of the United Kingdom or any other part. Here in the law of Scotland we have something which the Lord Advocate agrees to be obsolete.

The Lord Advocate: No.

Mr. Silverman: Well, virtually obsolete.

The Lord Advocate: No.

Mr. Silverman: If the Lord Advocate does not think that it is obsolete, virtually obsolete or ought to be obsolete, I cannot understand why the Clause is in the Bill. The present law of Scotland is that these offences, not the offence of murder, can be regarded as capital offences. The Lord Advocate wants to change that, and that is what I meant when I said that he regards the law as obsolete.
The Lord Advocate's defence for changing it in this form is that he wants to keep in a suitable case the penalty of imprisonment for life even though the capital sentence is no longer applicable. That view is understandable. My hon. Friend then asks him whether, supposing one merely abolished this part of the Scottish law which makes these offences capital offences without prescribing that the alternative penalty should be imprisonment for life, that would mean that in a suitable case Scottish courts could not inflict under the common law the penalty of imprisonment for life.
That was a very relevant and extremely intelligent question. The Lord Advocate gave him an extremely intelligent and an extremely honest answer. He said, "No, it would not. If the death sentence for this offence is abolished without requiring the court to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, the court can still impose a sentence of life imprisonment in a suitable case, but can impose some other sentence in a case where life imprisonment seems to the court in its discretion to be too heavy." Why not do it that way?
The Lord Advocate then said, "Because we want to have a rigid penalty; because we are abolishing the death penalty in a case where nobody believes the death penalty ought to be applied; we want to take away from the court any discretion to make the punishment fit the crime and fit the term of imprisonment to the circumstances of a particular case; we want to make absolutely certain that in these cases there shall be a sentence of life imprisonment". He offers no reason why. If we are to abolish the death penalty in those cases which do not involve murder.


cases in which it is wholly wrong to impose the death penalty, why fetter the discretion of the court about what the appropriate penalty shall be? That is completely incomprehensible, like everything else in the Bill.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I want to repeat my question to the Lord Advocate, which I think he overlooked in answering another point. Is there any Statute in England and Wales comparable to this Criminal Law (Scotland) Act, 1829?

Mr. Willis: The Lord Advocate's answers have so far been most confusing. I still do not know what purpose the Act serves. As I understand the Lord Advocate, anybody can be prosecuted for any relevant offence—and in that Act the offences are numerous—under common law and can receive a sentence of life imprisonment for those offences. Why do we need a special Act? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we want to make this a specific penalty for those offences. Does that mean that there cannot be a smaller penalty?

The Lord Advocate: The Lord Advocate indicated assent.

Mr. Willis: If there is a smaller penalty, why not proceed against the accused under common law under which they can be given a smaller penalty? Under common law can be done everything which can be done under the provisions of the Act. Why then continue the Act?

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend has just asked the Lord Advocate whether, if the Clause is passed as it stands, the court can pass a lesser sentence than imprisonment for life and the Lord Advocate indicated assent.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I intended to convey by nodding that there could be a smaller sentence if he was not charged under this Act. If the charge is under this Act, there is only one sentence which the court can pronounce.

Mr. Ross: I want to deal with the evidence given by the Scottish Home Department before the Royal Commission. What about Section 5 of the Act, which imposes certain powers? It refers to the power of the prosecutor to restrict the pains of law. It is only when he intervenes that the court is denied the

right to pass sentence of death and must pass any other lower sentence.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise for interrupting so long, but we want to get the matter clear. I admit that I do not know very much about it. I am simply trying to follow the argument. The Lord Advocate says that if a man is charged with a relevant offence, but not under the Act, he may be given a sentence which falls short of imprisonment for life. I follow that but, with all respect to the Lord Advocate, that is completely irrelevant to the argument, because if he is not charged under the Act the penalty of death will not apply anyhow.
In this Clause we are dealing with what should happen to a man charged under this Act, or the relevant law which is to be amended by the Bill. Without the Clause such a man might he sentenced to death. What the Clause provides is that he shall no longer be sentenced to death, but it also provides, unless I have misread it, that in substitution for any reference to a sentence of death there shall be a reference to a sentence of imprisonment for life.
What my hon. Friend wanted to know was whether that left the court any discretion at all. I feel that the Lord Advocate now agrees that it leaves the court no discretion of any kind, and that provided the Clause is relevant to the case the sentence must inevitably be one of imprisonment for life.

Mr. Willis: Perhaps I may now continue, after that very long interruption. I am thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), because he has put the point which I was trying to put and, not possessing his legal training, probably not putting so well. As I understand the position we can proceed against a man under common law and sentence him to any punishment up to imprisonment for life. Under the law that we are trying to repeal—if I understand the Lord Advocate correctly—if we proceed against such a man we must sentence him to life imprisonment. if we can sentence him to something less there is no argument for retaining the Act of 1829, because we are in exactly the same position as under the common law.
The Lord Advocate's argument for retaining the Act is that if we proceed


under it we must sentence the man to life imprisonment, and he says that it is desirable to do that. Surely it is prejudging the case to decide, before a man is found guilty, that he must be sentenced to imprisonment for life. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be fantastic nonsense, and completely unjust.

Mr. Mackie: The extreme penalty.

Mr. Willis: But we are going to decide to inflict the extreme penalty before we even try the man. That is quite unjustifiable. I cannot see how the Lord Advocate can possibly say that it is justifiable.

Mr. Ross: I am getting quite lost through the incompetence of the Government, both in respect of the advice received from the Royal Commission and what the Government say now. Paragraph 18 of the Report says:
Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Scotland) Act, 1829, saves 'the power of the prosecutor to restrict the pains of law'. It is customary for the Lord Advocate to restrict the pains of law in the case of any offence against the Act of 1829; this means that the court is precluded from passing the sentence of death but may pass any lesser sentence.

Mr. Willis: That is surely not a very justifiable position. I cannot see why the Lord Advocate wants to retain the Act.

Mr. Silverman: He does not want a Report stage.

Mr. Willis: I was coming to that. It seems very relevant when we remember that the Government are not prepared to change one provision, no matter how unjust or unreasonable it may be. They want to push the Bill through without Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: It might as well be the Boundary Commission.

Mr. Willis: I have discussed the Amendment with competent members of the Scottish Bar. They think that it is ridiculous to keep the Act on the Statute Book. From the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend I am inclined to agree with them, although I am not a lawyer.
9.45 p.m.
The arguments have been most unsatisfactory, and they do not justify the continuance of this Act at all. I do not know when this Act was last used, but certainly at present there does not seem to be any

justification for it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was boasting a short time ago about Scottish law, and saying how we liked to act on the common law and that sort of thing, and did not like to be tied. Now, he has come along to defend precisely the opposite. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe? Has he any definite principles which he applies to legal matters?
Lord Cooper and certain other eminent legal personages in Scotland used to have certain very good principles in considering these matters, but I cannot see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any good principles, because in one minute he is on one side of the fence and in another minute he is on the other side. It is purely a matter of what happens to be for the convenience of the Government, and I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to treat his profession in a more dignified manner. [Interruption.] Certainly. I see one of his cronies along the bench laughing, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had an unfortunate experience a short time ago when he was snubbed by the Scottish judges when acting as the tool of the Government. He was trying to withdraw certain documents, and the Scottish judges quite rightly snubbed him. I want to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman standing up for his profession and acting with a little dignity, and not as the tool of the Government. Certainly, this provision is most unjustified, and I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, even at this late stage, to consider repealing the Act.

Mr. Ross: I think that we must have further clarification from the Lord Advocate on this question of the 1829 Scottish Act, and that he should tell us exactly what the position is. So far as I can judge, it is that this Act which was introduced in 1829 extended the penalty of death to certain crimes, and we have had the benefit of the Royal Commission in giving us the information about what these crimes were. They were:
Wilful shooting, stabbing, poisoning or strangling of any of Her Majesty's subjects, the throwing of sulphuric acid or any other corrosive substance with intent to murder or cause grievous bodily harm.
So far as I know, the procedure under that Act carries an automatic penalty at the moment—the penalty of death—unless


the Lord Advocate himself invokes Section 5 of the same Act, in which case—and only if he does invoke it—the court is permitted to pass a lesser sentence. In fact, the court is precluded from sentencing the accused to death, but may pass a lesser sentence.
It is obvious from what has been said by the Lord Advocate, and from what is contained in the submissions to the Royal Commission, which were made by his own Department, that sentence of death is thus never pronounced except for murder or treason; in other words, this sanction which he now desires to continue has never been invoked in respect of the ultimate penalty. Now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to insert, instead of death, imprisonment for life, which means once again that if the case proceeds under this Act, the only penalty will be imprisonment for life, unless the Lord Advocate invokes Section 5. There is a very dangerous principle here. Indeed it is an attempt to submit the whole case to the judgment of one man—the Lord Advocate—who is to prejudge it, and it is only if he intervenes at all that a sentence less than imprisonment for life can be passed. [Interruption.] If the Solicitor-General for Scotland wishes to deny what I am saying, he has ample opportunity to rise and speak.
We wish to know from the Lord Advocate whether he is retaining some power which he has never used when the death penalty was the automatic penalty under the 1829 Act, and that he does not agree with the suggestion of my hon. Friend to get rid of this obsolete Act altogether and proceed under common law.

Mr. Ede: As I read this Clause, it imposes a minimum sentence of life imprisonment if there is a conviction under the law of 1829. I am opposed to inserting minimum punishments in legislation such as this. From my experience of the courts, limited as it is, I find that there is no more likely way to fail to get a conviction than to have a minimum sentence which a jury regards as being much too grave for the crime. In fact, the Government have shown their belief in that by some of the alterations which have been made in the law relating to road traffic offences, because it was believed that part of the difficulty in

securing convictions before juries was because of the belief that penalties which had to be imposed if convictions were recorded did not meet the justice of the case.
The 1829 Act was passed at a time when the attitude of the public towards crime and punishment was different from today. If the penalty of life imprisonment is the only one which can be inflicted under this Act as amended by the present Bill, either the right hon. and learned Gentleman will never use the new Act or it will operate in such a way that a person who should be convicted will not be convicted. If the penalty is left to the discretion of the judge, with a maximum penalty inserted, the law would be amended with greater effect; in the event of my hon. Friend's Amendment to repeal this Act altogether not being acceptable to the Minister. To put in a minimum penalty of life imprisonment is not in accordance with the feelings of ordinary people.
The hon. and learned Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department went to get a reference book in order to answer a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) who asked whether there was any law of England which compelled the court on a conviction, to impose a penalty of life imprisonment. Although I know that my hon. Friends from Scotland regard the law of England with the greatest contempt, I hope that we may have an answer to that question.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I wish to reinforce the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I know that the learned Lord Advocate did not intend to be discourteous over this matter, but there has been a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing across the Floor. My question was whether there is any comparable statute in England. I must confess that I am getting into a state of confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) admitted ignorance of the Scottish law, and I must confess considerable ignorance of the law as it relates to any part of the United Kingdom.
As I understood the argument advanced by the Secretary of State and, I think, by the learned Lord Advocate earlier this evening on another Amendment, they were standing by the principle


of uniformity of penalty as between one part of the United Kingdom and another. If they still stand by that principle, and if it is the case as my right hon. Friend suggests that there is no comparable Statute in England which imposes the minimum penalty of life sentence, then, of course, the consistent thing for the Government to do is to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.
This, of course, is not the only place in which the Government seem to be quite inconsistent and certainly very confusing on the matter. It is only a very few minutes ago since the learned Lord Advocate was telling my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne that Scottish law had an advantage over English law in that it enjoyed greater flexibility. Now the same learned Lord Advocate in the same discussion is rejecting my hon. Friend's Amendment because he wishes rigidity as against flexibility in Scottish law. I think he should tell us where he stands.
I am not merely confused but alarmed by one other aspect of the matter, the very important aspect raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He quoted the statement made right at the beginning of Part I of the Royal Commission's Report. The Report is a very bulky volume and few of us could say that he has been through every page thoroughly, but I should have thought that the Lord Advocate would at least have known what was on page I and that what had been quoted from it is really inconsistent with what he has been telling us about the court being compelled in existing conditions, if my hon. Friends' Amendment is not accepted, to impose a certain sentence.
It is possible that the Lord Advocate has overlooked the evidence which was given by his own Scottish Office to the Royal Commission. That evidence seems disturbing to me. It is that the Act of 1829 saves
the power of the prosecutor to restrict the pains of law.
It goes on to say
that the court is precluded from passing the sentence of death but"—
on the intervention of the Lord Advocate—
may pass any lesser sentence.

I have only two comments to make. If we accept the Bill as the Lord Advocate proposes and if when this Measure is invoked by the Lord Advocate's Department the court is then compelled to pass a minimum sentence of life imprisonment, we shall, in fact, be passing over to the prosecution before the case has ever been opened or argued in court the judgment of the court if guilt is proved. That seems to me to be a complete abrogation of what I should have thought was the elementary principle of the prosecutor and the judge not being the same person.
If, of course, the situation is not as the Lord Advocate has told us tonight, but is as the Scottish Office told the Royal Commission it was, the situation still seems to be wrong in principle and in law, and I say this as someone who does not understand the law. It means that if we keep this Act on the Statute Book the Lord Advocate can intervene and ask for any lesser sentence. In other words, here again the Lord Advocate appears to be taking upon himself the function which was essentially, I should have thought, the function of the judge, and the simple answer to all these inconsistencies and confusions seems to he to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is a very reasonable Amendment and one which apparently enjoys the support of the Scottish legal profession.
I understand the difficulty the Lord Advocate might have got into at this time of night and this stage of the Bill. I suggest to him that perhaps it might be a good idea if he were to say. "This is more complicated than it seemed. Perhaps we should take it away, have a look at it, and talk about it on the Report stage."

10.0 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I do not want there to be any uncertainty about the position of the prosecutor in this case. As I pointed out to the Committee earlier, the Act of 1829 does not create offences but creates penalties. The practice for the prosecution when it has reported to it offences which might well come under that Act—if they were attempts to murder, throwing sulphuric acid and the like—has been to consider whether they might be charged as ordinary common law offences with no reference to the Act at all. That would be the normal way. Since the passing of the Act, however, it


has been possible to charge and have reference to this Act, when a compulsory sentence—if I may so put it—of death was the only sentence which the court could pronounce, unless Section 5 were brought into operation—namely that the prosecutor restricted the pains of law. The prosecutor can restrict the pains of law in one sense by not prosecuting under the Act at all, or not making reference to the Act. In another way, he can restrict the pains of law at the end of the trial.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) whether there was in England an Act with a compulsory life imprisonment. I understand that up to the present moment there is no such Act on the Statute Book. Compulsory life imprisonment is included in the present Bill, and the Committee will remember that compulsory life imprisonment was included in a Bill discussed last Session.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am certain the Lord Advocate does not intend or wish in the least to mislead the Committee. Life imprisonment in the two cases to which he has referred is for murder, in substitution for the capital sentence. It is common ground that, in the discussion we are now having, we are not dealing with murder at all.

The Lord Advocate: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) indicated that he disapproved of compulsory sentences—in other words, he said that one would never get a conviction—

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede rose—

The Lord Advocate: —that it is more difficult to get a conviction with a compulsory sentence. It might have been a more appropriate moment to remove the compulsory sentence in 1949, when the Criminal Justice Bill was being passed. I do not think there is any real substance in that.
I return for a moment to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) who pointed out, quite rightly, that we are not dealing here with murder, whereas in the Bills to which I referred, we were dealing with murder, but the 1829 Act dealt with the most revolting crimes. I do not think it is going

too far to invite the Committee to say that whereas in the past they have carried a compulsory sentence of death, in place of that the Committee should provide compulsory imprisonment for life.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16.—(PAST OFFENCES.)

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, to leave out from "shall" to end of the Clause and to add
have effect in relation to any offence tried after the date of the commencement of this Act".
I move the Amendment in order to have light thrown on the very dark places of this Clause which, in the view of my right hon. Friends and myself, is at present in a most unsatisfactory state. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that those who are tried for murder after the date of the commencement of this Act shall have the advantage of its provisions—all those who are tried for murder after the coming into force of the Act.
The Clause in its present form does not seem to ensure that, and it seems to me to be an elementary requirement of justice that it should. The position if the Clause as it stands became the law of the land would appear to be this: if in a murder trial the indictment happens to have been signed before the date of the commencement of the Act, the Act will not apply to that case; if, on the other hand, the indictment is signed after the Act comes into force, then the Act will have effect.
The remarkable position which would result if the Clause became law would be that in the same assize, in the same calendar, we might have two separate murder trials, and in one the accused might be charged under the provisions of this Bill, while in the second the accused would be liable to be charged under the provisions of the law as it exists at present.
The conclusion that would result from that, quite apart from the inherent injustice of the situation, would indeed be remarkable. It is by no means a rare event for two murder trials to take place


in the same assize. Even in the distinguished assize town on the circuit where I am accustomed to practise—Carmarthen—we have had two murder trials in the same assize. Therefore, the grotesque situation which I have mentioned might, under the provisions of Clause 16 as at present drafted, still arise. In larger assize towns, such as Liverpool and Manchester, this is a contingency that could very easily arise when this Bill becomes the law of the land.
We would then find ourselves in that same assize with trials of accused men, of the same character, one man facing the possible supereme penalty of death and the other protected by the provisions of this Measure. One could have the situation where, in one court, a man might seek to run the defence of provocation by words—which would, of course, not provide him with any defence under the present law—whereas in the adjoining court, if another accused person had the advantage of this Bill, he would be able to enjoy the protection of the Measure itself.
Other possible contradictions of that kind readily occur to one, culminating in the form of the death penalty itself; with the simple form of Clause 10 contrasted with the grisly formality of the present form of the death sentence, with its reference not only to the form of the penalty but to the place of burial, which, I am bound to say, is a ceremony which never ceases to fill me with abhorrence and terror. Happily, that is to go.
In my submission, these possibilities are not fanciful. The interval between the date of the signing of the indictment and the date of trial may be substantial—I do not know how long it is. I see that the learned Attorney-General shakes his head, and it may well be that there is not a great deal of force in that part of my observations. But Clause 16 also says:
This Act shall not have effect in relation to any offence, where …
where, in the case of a court-martial, the court-martial has been ordered or convened before the date of the commencement of the Act.
The learned Attorney-General is even more familiar than I with the considerable interval that at any rate used to occur, in the days when he and I were concerned directly with these matters, between the

date when a court-martial was convened and the date of the actual trial. I do not know what the position is in Scotland. I am very sorry to see that my Scottish friends, having added such distinguished legal knowledge to the interesting discussions which we have had over the last four hours, have now left the battlefield, but they might well be able to underline the fact that in Scotland, too, there is an interval between the date of the service of the indictment and the date of the trial.
It may be objected that this Amendment will cause more trouble. For instance, it may be said that it will necessitate the drafting of a new indictment. I cannot see that there can be any technical objection to the terms of the Amendment in that they will involve the drafting of a new indictment, it may be, in a number of cases. There is already adequate provision under the Indictments Act, 1915, for amendments to be made where the justice in the case requires—indeed, at any stage during the trial itself. Certainly it can be done without any difficulty before the trial begins.
10.15 p.m.
As some at least of the provisions of this Bill—and I emphasise the word "some"—will have the effect of improving the quality of our criminal justice, there will be no technical difficulty, therefore, in the formulating of a fresh indictment to cover the case of the man who was initially indicted, but not tried, before this Measure came into force. I feel that this is a matter of elementary justice. The Clause as it at present stands certainly gives me the impression of running the grave risk of producing inequality before the law for two accused men charged in the self-same assize, and I cannot believe that it can be the desire of the Government to achieve that grotesque injustice.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): It is certainly not the intention of this provision to give rise to inequality between two persons charged with murder. But I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) will appreciate that whether the Royal Assent is given in the course of one assize or between two successive assizes, there will be and must be different law operating in relation to the cases tried after the Royal Assent and


to the cases tried before the Royal Assent. On that, I think, we agree.
It does not seem to me to add very much to the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made to attach importance to the illustration that he gave of two separate trials for murder at the same assize. The problem arises even at the same assize or at consecutive assizes. I was interested to note that the town of Carmarthen, which I well remember, seems to have had two murder trials at the same assize, which I am sure is a very remarkable event in the history of Carmarthen.
The real problem here, when one is altering the law in relation to murder under Part I and distinguishing between capital murders and other murders in Part II, is at what stage and at what point of time to effect the transition. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the transition shall apply
in relation to any offence tried after the date of the commencement of this Act".
Of course, in one sense this Bill as it now stands will apply to that. But this Amendment does not really meet the problem which has got to be faced and to which we feel the Bill gives the right solution.
The problem really is this. No one can at the moment foretell when the Royal Assent will be given. We want this Bill to come into operation as soon as possible. Let us consider the possibilities. There are not so many murder trials in a year. The Royal Assent may come at a time when a murder trial is going on. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it would be quite impracticable to alter the law under which that trial is being held in the course of that trial. Therefore, one has got to fix some point of time in relation to the trial so that the change of law will or will not operate in relation to that point of time.
In the course of another case, the Royal Assent may be given before the indictment is signed. The signing of the indictment is equivalent to the return of a true bill by a grand jury; there is no fixed time for the signing of an indictment, which may take place after Commission day. It is the bill of indictment, of course, which has to be preferred

before Commission day; signing may take place afterwards.
If the Royal Assent is given before the indictment in a particular case is signed, then, under the Bill, the trial will be subject to the provisions of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is all right; he will, I imagine, find nothing to complain about there. Two problems remain: what is to be done in relation to a trial which is going on when the Royal Assent is given, and what is to be done in relation to a murder trial where the indictment has been signed before the Royal Assent is given?
The hon. and learned Gentleman would go this far, at any rate, that the trial which is going on when the Royal Assent is given should be carried on under the law as it was before the Bill came into force. I imagine that he will agree with that. What, then, about a case where the indictment is signed and a few days elapse, as they may in some parts, though not very often, and the Royal Assent happens to be given between the signing of the indictment and the commencement of the hearing? The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that such a case should be heard under what I might call the new law under the Bill.
I do not agree with him, and I hope that he will, on reflection, agree with me. Before the Bill becomes an Act, one could not prefer an indictment for the offence of capital murder. That can be done only after the Bill becomes an Act. Although there are powers for amending an indictment when it is defective, there is not, I think, power to substitute for one statement of offence a statement of offence of a different character. But for this provision, the difficulty would be this. If there were an indictment, before the Royal Assent, charging murder in one of those cases which would remain capital under the Bill, the only sentence, if an amendment could not be made—and I do not think it could—which the court could pass on conviction, if the Bill applied, would be a sentence of life imprisonment. I take that as an illustration of a case where, under the present law, there would be a death sentence and where, under the Bill, there would still be a death sentence.
That would really be a very odd and a very remarkable result. It would be absurd if the effect of the Bill were to make it impossible to convict of capital murder those whose offences were capital both under the present law and under the Bill.
We have given much thought to the problem. It is a transition problem. Our view is that the right place to make the break is at the signing of the indictment, which really is the start of the trial for murder, although, as I say, there may be a few days—never a long time, I believe—between the signing of the indictment and the commencement of the hearing.
How will that work? It will deal with the problems to which I have just been drawing attention, of the part-heard case when the Royal Assent comes and the difficulty with regard to the statement of offence in the indictment which is signed before the Royal Assent for what one might call a capital murder not charged as such in the indictment. It will mean that all those cases where the indictment is signed after the Royal Assent will be subject to the Bill in its entirety.
All those cases—and I think there will be very few of them, if any—where the indictment is signed before Royal Assent, and the hearing of the case has not started before Royal Assent or is part heard when Royal Assent is given, will be tried under the old law. One has to face up to that, and it is the only effective way to make the transition. It means that the defence of diminished responsibility cannot he relied upon if that case arises. It may well not do so. In fact, Part I of this Bill could not be relied upon. But that can be dealt with and adjusted, should that case arise, by the exercise by my right hon. Friend of the Royal Prerogative.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, I am sure, of what the predecessor of the present Home Secretary said in the House on 23rd February last year about the exercise of the Royal Prerogative:
Each case will be considered on its merits, regard being had to the special considerations relating to that case and all relevant considerations of either a public or private nature."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 581.]
If there were a case where the accused was convicted of murder under the old

law after the Royal Assent because the indictment was signed before the Royal Assent or the case was part heard when Royal Assent was given, it would be right for my right hon. Friend to pay full regard to that in determining whether or not to exercise the Royal Prerogative.
I hope that I have satisfied the hon. and learned Gentleman that the solution propounded in this Clause is the correct one. I agree with him that it is not easy to devise a satisfactory way of making the transition. We have done our best to find the best solution, and I hope that I have made clear the reasons why we have come to that conclusion.
I want to say one more word about the ordering and convening of courts-martial. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has great experience of these matters. I can claim a little myself. Whilst not making any promise, I will consider whether it is possible to find some point of time in relation to a court-martial which is likely to be more closely related to the commencement of the hearing of the case than the actual making of the convening order. If such a point of time can be found nearer to actual commencement, it will reduce the possibility of one of these cases being started before Royal Assent and finished after it. Of course the chances of a court-martial for murder taking place at that time would be very remote indeed.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman of the difficulties of this problem and that we have found the best solution to the problem which will operate with the least inconvenience.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has demonstrated with great lucidity that there are many technical problems involved here, and that it is not easy to find the right point at which to make a statement in confidence that no anomalies will result. The Attorney-General said that certain results would be absurd. I am afraid that in the context of this Bill that is not an attractive reason to advance, because there will be so many absurdities under the Bill anyhow that one more or less can hardly make much difference. The only really intolerable thing would be that there should ever be in this country an execution in circumstances in which the existing law on the date of the execution would


not have authorised it, and that that should have happened merely by some accident of time in the signing of the indictment or the arranging of the date of the trial. That would be an intolerable thing which we are all anxious to avoid.
While it is impossible to expect the Attorney-General to give undertakings as to the future exercise of the prerogative of mercy by another member of the Government, we should like to be satisfied that in no circumstances would that absurdity be allowed to happen.

10.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I might answer that point in this way. There is the further safeguard, of which the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, that all murder cases in this country are dealt with for the prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I am certain that the Director will do his utmost to see that, by a short adjournment or some machinery of that sort, there is no part-heard murder case. I am sure that the courts will do their best to assist and to ensure that any case is either concluded before the Royal Assent or starts afterwards, in which case no problem will arise. I mention that as a further safeguard. I do not believe that we shall be troubled with this problem, but obviously some provision has to be made in the Bill in relation to it.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I rise only to say that I fully accept the explanation given by the Attorney-General. When we considered this matter before the Committee stage it seemed to us that it should apply to any offence tried after the Act came into force. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced good arguments as to the difficulties which would arise if that were the case. As he says, this is purely a transitional problem and only of ephemeral importance. In the circumstances, I think it might expedite the work of the Committee if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) would consider withdrawing the Amendment so that we might go on to other matters.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: In view of the most lucid and helpful observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not wish, in the circumstances, to press the Amendment. The Attorney-General has

placed on the record for any future Ministers who may be concerned with these matters the fact that it is certainly the will of the House of Commons that no injustices, of the kind which I contemplated might arise, shall arise in the enforcement of the criminal law relating to murder.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also rightly drawn attention to the existence of the all-seeing eye of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who, admittedly, would not arrange the timing of the beginning of a murder trial if the "bush telegraph" indicated that the Act was about to take effect.
I attach particular importance, in view of my own experiences, to the undertaking of the Attorney-General to look again at this possibility and the unsatisfactory nature of the reference to the date of the convening of a court-martial, bearing in mind certainly my own recollections, and perhaps some of those of the Attorney-General, of the fact that a considerable gap in time was in some cases liable to arise.
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
We have made very good progress today. My right hon. Friend asked me to say how sorry he was that he was detained on other business and was unable to be here for the concluding stages. I hope that we shall make as good progress tomorrow and be able to conclude the Committee stage of this Measure at a reasonable hour.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: It is only right that I should express my disappointment that we are not to make more progress with the Bill than we have done. Some of us had hoped that we would make inroads into the new Clauses, but we appreciate that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are perhaps getting tired. We are very glad of this new evidence that they are to be more solicitous of their health than they have been in the past. We think that that is a sign of growing redemption on their part.
We have made good progress with some of the most difficult parts of the Bill, and although I regret that we have not gone further, I think that it would be wise to adjourn discussion now and start on the new Clauses with fresh minds tomorrow. I hope there will be no dragging our feet tomorrow and that we shall be able to conclude the Committee stage.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not wish to introduce any note of dissent in this most unaccustomed example of complete unanimity between my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and the Government about a Bill on which I thought we agreed about nothing, not even about the moment we should agree to report Progress. We were getting on nicely and learning a great deal. I certainly learned a great deal about Scottish law which I hope will be of value to me some day, although I do not see how.
I rise not to oppose the Motion, but to say that this is probably the last occasion for many years that we shall have the opportunity—apart from the general principle of the abolition of the death penalty—to discuss qualifications and compromises of any kind. The Royal Commission sat for a number of years and made a large number of recommendations—I believe it was 60. It may well be that none of those recommendations will commend itself to the Committee but, in view of the progress we have made, I earnestly hope that as long as we make reasonable progress tomorrow it will not

be thought necessary to complete the Committee stage tomorrow, if in fact there still remain to be discussed new Clauses based on perhaps unanimous recommendations of the Commission which would otherwise never be examined by Parliament. That would be most unfortunate and I hope that we shall not be under great pressure to complete the whole of the Committee stage tomorrow and so treat with complete disrespect the labours over many years of one of the most valuable Royal Commissions which has ever sat in this country.

The Attorney-General: We can, if more time is required, go on later tonight discussing the new Clauses, but I do not think that that will be the desire of the Committee. We must, if we can, as my right hon. Friend has said, finish the Committee stage tomorrow night. I am sure that we will do our utmost to give consideration to all the new Clauses. We have already done so, but we will give our reasons for our decisions about them, and I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind. If the Committee wants to continue tonight to discuss the new Clauses, we can do so, but in view of the tenderness which has been expressed for the health of my colleagues and myself, I do not want to prolong the agony of stopping here and discussing the new Clauses tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SUPPLY OF TEACHERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

10.40 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: May I first congratulate the hon. Member on his new appointment? He follows an excellent junior Minister whom educationists throughout the country have learned to like and respect. I hope and believe that the new Parliamentary Secretary, although he is back again inside the political gaol from which he escaped for a few months, will acquit himself well while in his new post.
I deplore the fact that his chief has been chosen from another place, remarkable in history for the number of Education Bills that it has thrown out. That observation is not personal. I do not mind the noble Lord moving from battleships to scholarships, but education, which the Conservatives exiled from the Cabinet until we made them put it back, ought to have a senior spokesman in the elected House of Parliament.
The serious overcrowding of our schools is shown by the figures I am about to give. By law the maximum size of classes should be 30 for secondary schools and 40 for primary schools. In 1938 there were 8,700 senior—what would now be secondary—classes of over 30 and 38,000 primary classes of over 40. In other words, there were 47,000 oversized classes. In January, 1955, there were 35,000 secondary classes of over 30 and 37,000 primary classes of over 40—or 72,000 oversized classes. There are reasons for this. There was the raising of the school-leaving age in 1946; the dramatic increase in the birth rate between 1945 and 1950; and our failure to provide enough new schools and teachers to hold the 1938 position, bad as that was.
It is true that schools come steadily off the stocks, despite the cuts imposed on local education authorities by two successive Ministers—I hope that the Minister will note the latest protest of the County Councils Association about this—and that the number of teachers has steadily expanded. But a Select Committee of the House, the National Advisory Council for the Supply and Training of Teachers, The Times Educational

Supplement and now The Times itself have called attention to the fact that we lag behind in building and in the supply of teachers.
The incidence of large classes now moves from primary to secondary schools. In January, 1954, the number of overcrowded primary classes was 40,447. In January, 1955, it had dropped to 37,011. But we must not therefore imagine that the primary school problem is solved to the extent that we can draft hosts of primary teachers to secondary schools. There are still 37,000 oversized classes to wipe out. Primary teachers have borne the heat and burden of the day for ten years. It would be wrong to prevent the decline in child population from getting primary classes down to the standards prescribed by law. Moreover, even in 1965 the infant schools' population will be 162,000 higher than it was in 1938.
The "bulge" is now steadily packing the secondary schools. In January, 1954 there were 33,347 oversized classes, but in January, 1955, there were 35,428. The overall shortage remains; it is merely the incidence which is shifting. Post-war Governments stepped up the supply of teachers. First, there were the emergency-trained teachers who, I think it will be agreed, are giving a good account of themselves today. Then, the number of training colleges has increased from 78 to 133. The annual intake of colleges and university departments of education has increased to over 15,000, but the annual wastage from the teaching profession by retirement, marriage and other causes is 10,000.
Experts thought that an extra 5,000 teachers a year would hold the 1950 position, but an annual return of 2,000 married women gives now an annual increase of 7,000, so that the increase has outstripped expectations. Indeed, experts hope that once the "bulge" has passed though our schools, this steady increase will provide teachers for the next operation—first, to get back to the 1938 figures and then on to the standards laid down by law, so that all children will be educated in the size of class prescribed for them. Even that will mean classes double the size in which 250,000 privileged children are throughout these critical years being educated in private schools.
But while the picture some years ahead looks promising, let us remember that although the school population stops increasing in 1961—it will have risen from 4·9 million in 1947 to 6·8 million in 1961—the decline after that is at first slow. As late as 1968 there will still be 1⅓ million more school children than in 1947.
The burning question is, what can we do for our children now? They are moving from classes where the maximum should be 40 into classes where it should be 30. Secondary schools now face hardships as great as those that the primary schools have endured for ten years. Indeed, even the new buildings, the so-called senior schools, built just before the war cannot cope with the massive intake of secondary school children, and, as for the older, shabby ex-elementary schools, they are almost breaking down under the strain.
There is also the fact that the teacher shortage, like the position of bad schools, is a matter of geography. It is unevenly distributed. We have still the shameful village schools and the cramped slum schools of some industrial towns. Same local education authorities have always been short of teachers. Some local education authorities have an extra burden of children. For example, whereas the national increase is under 50 per cent., Hampshire has doubled its child population since the war. Some industrial areas face a similar abnormal expansion in the number of children and also the counter-attractions of thriving industry and good employment there for potential teachers.
Figures are dangerous, but they give a rough picture of this aspect of the problem. In three rural counties the pupil-teacher ratio last October was Cheshire 29·8, Hampshire 28·9 and Westmorland 22·3. In a few boroughs the figures were Bournemouth, 25·7, Southampton 26·7, Birmingham 31·1, Wakefield 31·1 and Hull 32·1.
Compare with these the Welsh counties of Cardigan 18·7, Montgomery 18·3 and Radnor 17·3. And these disparities were tending to increase. For that reason the National Advisory Council for the Training and Supply of Teachers recommended last year, as I did in an earlier debate, that every local education authority ought to be given an

establishment … something like its fair share of the national supply, and during the critical years should not exceed that, so that teacher-starved areas
might recruit more teachers.
At first, the previous Minister was coy, the professional bodies were hostile and the better-off local education authorities had not always played the game when similar sharing out of young women teachers was tried after the war. Each had good reasons for not supporting rationing. But the fact that all have been compelled by circumstance to agree that the Minister's proposal is a good one just shows how desperate the position is. I therefore commend the Minister's Circular 318 to the country, as one anxious about secondary education and especially as a member of the Hampshire Education Committee.
But there are some caveats. This must not mean the direction of teachers from primary schools to secondary schools. I was glad to see the disclaimer of the West Riding authority, another hard-hit authority, on that score. I see no hardship in a young teacher coming out of college and not finding a job in the town and the school he has chosen. No profession can guarantee that its young entrants can count on selecting the most convenient posts at once.
There is a golden opportunity for young men and women of ambition in the rural schools of Britain, despite the physical condition of some of them. Birmingham is a good local education authority and the shortage is no condemnation either of the city or of its local education authority. I would urge, too, that some, and only some, of the primary teachers should volunteer to help to cope with the large numbers in secondary schools. Every good teacher is a teacher first and a specialist afterwards. Some of the keen ones will, I hope, take advantage of the short-term courses offered for special training for the emergency. This is a call for voluntary service.
I believe that the teaching profession wants to help. It has a duty by its members in the grim areas of overcrowding. No child ought to have his primary schooling in oversized classes followed by his secondary schooling in oversized classes. The profession is resolute and determined that primary education must


not foot the whole bill for the Government's inadequacy. Primary education has been the Cinderella for over fifty years, and was even so in the last Burnham award.
Despite what I have said about general teaching ability, primary teachers have special skills from training, experience and endowment. It is educationally unsound to try to build up the superstructure of British education, secondary education, in all its promise and progress, if its foundations, primary education, are always to be sacrificed or weakened; so any transfer from primary to secondary must be done with good will and free will and must not check the primary schools' advance to reasonably sized classes.
Incidentally, I hope that some day we shall end the crass anomaly of fixing the size of primary classes at 40 as compared with 30 for secondary, as though education depended on the physical size of the children. Similarly there must be free will and good will in the relations between local education authorities. I am glad that they seem to be wanting to support the Minister, and that there will be, no need for sanctions.
But the poorer local education authorities must not rely on quotas to solve their problem. It will be a bad thing if they sit back and say, "We are bound to get our ration anyway". They must go out and actively recruit teachers, and they must look at what is wrong in their present set-up. Education of 18th January, 1957, reported one local education authority as having 189 primary schools. Only 38 have water-closets, 37 have no staff lavatory, 41 no hot waiter, and 144 have no staff washbasins. When are local education authorities going to see that teachers do not have to work under conditions that the Factory Acts would not tolerate for other workers?
Thousands of teachers, especially in small schools, are given a host of ancillary jobs to do. I was staggered at the figure I found in last year's Ministry of Education Report: 12,000 out of 29,000 head teachers are also full-time class teachers.
Local housing authorities can help to make teachers mobile by providing housing accommodation, if they really want to save their children by getting

more teachers in teacher-starved areas. But all this merely helps in the sharing. The basic problem is the shortage itself, especially if we want to see education advance, and the teacher's training extended to three years. I have already promised to allocate the time equally between myself and the Minister, otherwise I would give some of the reasons for this important reform. I would only say that if we keep the training colleges at their present physical size, the introduction of the three years' teacher training would mean cutting down the annual intake to the profession by nearly one-third every year.
What we want is greater physical accommodation at the training colleges—hostels, teaching space, equipment, staff—so that the training colleges can still have the same annual intake. If that is done, the cost for introducing the three years' teacher training will be only one year's supply—one year's output of the training colleges, at the moment of its introduction.
But I return to the immediate problem, and would make one further practical suggestion. I would ask the Minister whether he will not defer from National Service young men coming out of training colleges, and release those at present serving. That would give us a desperately-needed 2,000–3,000 extra teachers for the present crisis at once. I must admit that I do not like the differential call-up. One of the good things about National Service is that it is fair. But for agriculture and mining we place the urgent needs of the country first, and in this crisis I believe that we ought to do so for secondary education. Again, the Trades Union Congress proposal, just announced, to cut the call-up by six months would give us 500–1,000 extra teachers.
To illustrate to the House how grim things are in the worst areas, on 23rd June, according to The Times, the Chairman of West Bromwich Education Committee said that its schools were 20 per cent. below proper staffing establishment. In one year in Birmingham, according to The Times of 11 th August, the number of secondary modern pupils went up from 49,720 to 52,926, but the number of secondary modern teachers went down from 1,788 to 1,650. In 1955–56, the figures were: all secondary pupils up


from 66,205 to 70,678; all secondary teachers up from 2,599 to 2,658–60 extra teachers for 4,000 extra children.
Six months ago the Birmingham education authority officer estimated the shortage at 1,128 teachers and prophesied an "inevitable breakdown". Of 4,765 classes, 3,297 were oversized, 2,493 of them being over 40. Over the weekend the same officer wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer), saying:
The position remains extremely serious…it is a little better than last January.
I have tried to work out from his figures, which are not yet finalised, how much better it is—probably 249 teachers better than the estimate which he gave in August. So that Birmingham is still nearly 1,000 teachers short.
Last July the chief education officer of Hull spoke of "a crisis in 1957" and the fear of a four-day week there. The Times of 11th July said:
The whole apparatus of education—especially on the secondary and technical side—is hopelessly overtaxed. No good administrator can be satisfied if he knows what talent is slipping through the nation's hands.
We have achieved much since the war, but not enough. Talent is indeed slipping through our hands. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary, and through him the Minister—whose first public speech was fired with a glow of idealism—to tackle both the special problem that I have raised tonight and the overall task of which it is just a sample. That task is not only of desperately holding on to what we have achieved, but of pushing on to the goal of the 1944 Act.
As a Socialist, I hope that the Minister's period of office will be short. Long or short, I would urge him to launch a few torpedoes at the Government on behalf of education, and tonight's debate is a call for action on a most urgent problem.

10.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Dr. King) very sincerely for his kind remarks about myself. I should also like to thank him for having given me notice of the points that he intended to raise. I will of course ensure that my noble Friend sees them. There are also some points which I will bring to the attention of my right hon.

Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.
I agree with the hon. Member very much about the importance of National Service seeming fair. The very first problem which came my way when I was first a junior Minister at the Ministry of Supply, two and a half years ago, was about the deferment of National Service for certain craftsmen. The complications and correspondence that arose made me realise as nothing else might have done the enormous difficulty of breaching any further the principle of universality by classes of deferment. But I know the hon. Member is aware of the difficulties, and I will see that the Minister of Labour is acquainted with what he said.
The hon. Member spoke of serious overcrowding in schools. It is certainly true that classes in primary and secondary schools are larger than they should be, but it is encouraging that the teacher force is increasing each year and that that increase is more than enough to match the additional needs arising from the post-war bulge and to make possible some improvement in staffing. I shall have some figures about that to quote later in my speech. The trouble of course is that the teachers are unevenly distributed among authorities. The scheme announced in Circular 318 is primarily designed to correct part of that maldistribution although of course not to bring complete equality of staffing in different areas which of necessity vary in their circumstances.
Circular 318, which was issued by the former Minister after consulting the various local authority and teacher associations, called for a twofold contribution from local education authorities—first, readiness to apply with vigour suitable employment policies and, secondly, the acceptance of the principle of fair shares to which the hon. Member referred. Those two contributions depend on one another for their effectiveness and both are essential to the success of the scheme.
First, a word about employment policies. I know that my noble Friend feels it is essential that we should make full use of what I think in the jargon of the Ministry is described as immobile teachers—that is, married women. Secondly, it is essential that teachers over retiring age should be encouraged


to stay on. Thirdly, it is essential that full use should be made of part-time teachers.
Now I come to what perhaps is even more important, the question of fair shares. Each authority has been given a guide to its own share of the teacher force as at January, 1958, calculated on a national basis. My noble Friend fully recognises that some marginal adjustments may have to be made to take account of local circumstances of which his predecessor might not have been aware, and discussions about these adjustments are still taking place. At the same time, room for flexibility here is of necessity limited, and I think the scheme will be frustrated if adjustments significantly reduce the 3,500 posts in question. We want flexibility, but not so much as to frustrate the scheme.
A word, next, about partnership. The previous Minister was very much impressed by the strong sense of partnership, and good will which was evident on all sides at the October conference, and he and my noble Friend both realise that the scheme will be a success only if local authorities and teachers are prepared to co-operate wholeheartedly. I am sure that my noble Friend will very much welcome the hon. Member's wholehearted support of the scheme.
The initial reaction of local authorities has been very encouraging indeed, and the majority have already accepted the obligation to be guided by the policies and objectives detailed in the circular. I am therefore confident that a survey which we propose to make next autumn will show that authorities have been making their full contribution, each in their appropriate way, to this very difficult task.
I should like to turn to one or two particular questions which the hon. Member raised in his speech, and above all to the question of the reduction of the size of classes in primary schools. In the first place, if staffing standards in secondary schools are not to become disproportionately worse during the next few years, it will be necessary for a number of teachers to transfer from primary schools. That is the question of vertical transfer, in the jargon of the teaching profession, to which the hon. Member for

Meriden (Mr. Moss) referred in some Questions which he asked last Thursday. The teacher-training establishments are already concentrating on training teachers for secondary schools, but they cannot meet the whole need. Moreover, many teachers in primary schools were trained for secondary school work.
Let me do my best to answer fairly the points which the hon. Member made in his speech. I know that many teachers are afraid that the improvement in staffing standards in primary schools which everybody wants will be prevented if we have this vertical transfer. The trend which we already have and which can be seen from existing figures is worth noting in this respect! Since January, 1954, the number of pupils per full-time teacher has fallen in junior education from 32·1 to 31·5 in 1955 and exactly 31 in January, 1956, whereas at the same time in our secondary schools the number of pupils per full-time teacher had risen from 20·9 in January, 1954. to 21·0 in January. 1955 and 21·4 in January, 1956. On seeing these figures it is difficult not to feel that there is a case for some vertical transfer from primary to secondary education, that that is essential, and that at present the trend in junior education is favourable while the trend in senior education is not so favourable.
I assure the House that the number of transfers which the Minister has in mind is not incompatible with a marked improvement in the staffing standards of the primary schools. Even if there is no worsening at all in the staffing standards in the senior classes below the 1955 ratio of 21 pupils per full-time teacher, an annual net increase of 7,000 teachers would make possible a steady reduction of the size of junior classes, and it is our hope and target in the Ministry to succeed in bringing about a complete elimination of oversized junior classes by 1961. Therefore, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have his point very much in mind, but we do, honestly, believe that a degree of vertical transfer is not incompatible with continuing the favourable trend in primary schools, where, as I have said, we hope to achieve the elimination of oversized classes in four or five years from now.
I see that I have just two or three minutes left, and I would just say a word about the three-year teacher train-


ing course. The hon. Gentleman, in fairly dividing the time with me, kindly left out this subject, so I will mention it now. I have already studied the advice which the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers gave to the Minister last summer on this subject. I know just how anxious the educational world is to see the three-year course introduced. I also know that all sections of educational opinion regard it as important that the Minister should consider the three-year course favourably, and that the timing of its introduction should be announced as soon as possible.
At the same time—and I think hon. Members will agree that this is true of most educational reforms—we cannot take a far-reaching decision like this too quickly, because there are complex considerations of policy involved. In particular, we have to consider the effect on class size and the slowing down of recruitment and, as hon. Members know—land as I have just been saying—there is general agreement that a reduction in the size of classes must he a first priority.
I absolutely agree that this question of the distribution of teachers is highly relevant to the timing of the introduction of the three-year course. It would, indeed, he most unfortunate if, with a favourable decision on the three-year course, with a rapidly growing national teaching force and with bright prospects of a reduction in the size of classes, the

maldistribution of teachers should still delay the introduction of the three-year course; it could conceivably happen that the distribution of teachers among local education authorities might be so uneven that the authorities which find it hardest to find teachers could not reasonably be asked to face the consequences of the introduction of the three-year course.
That is one reason why, like the hon. Member for Itchen, I welcome the measures which were taken last year to improve teacher distribution. If, as I believe will be the case, given the good will of teachers and local education authorities, they will succeed, then it will become possible to consider the three-year course in a far more favourable atmosphere.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that both my noble Friend and myself fully recognise that the success of our educational plans depends in the last resort, to a very large extent on the quality of the teachers in our nation's primary and secondary schools, and that is very much in our minds. We also know that the foundation of the whole of our educational system must be the supply of teachers and the quality of the teachers. That conviction will guide our work, however long this Parliament lasts.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.